36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 128
CONTENTS
Friday, October 6, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| CIVILIAN WAR-RELATED BENEFITS ACT
|
| Bill C-41. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4
|
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Motion No. 3
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1010
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1015
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1020
1025
1030
1035
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1040
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1045
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1050
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1055
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| SIDS AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| CRIME
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1100
| MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| THE LATE DR. MICHAEL SMITH
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| LABOUR MARKET
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| FEDNOR
|
| Mr. Raymond Bonin |
1105
| FARMING FAMILY OF THE YEAR
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| CANADIAN FIREARMS CENTRE
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| CHINESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| SASKATCHEWAN
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| YANNICK NEZET-SÉGUIN
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1110
| DEBT REDUCTION
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| NOVA SCOTIA 4-H PRO-SHOW
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| NORTHERN IRELAND
|
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1120
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| MOSEL VITELIC
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1125
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| MARKET REVENUE INSURANCE PROGRAM
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1130
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1135
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1140
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| WOMEN'S POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. David Price |
1145
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| SPECIES AT RISK
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1150
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1155
| Mr. John Maloney |
| INTERNATIONAL FREE TRADE ZONE AT MIRABEL
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Hon. John Manley |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Ivan Grose |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1200
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1205
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-503. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Raymond Bonin |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-504. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1210
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-505. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| PETITIONS
|
| Epilepsy
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Sexual Abuse
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Importation of MOX
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1215
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Fuel Prices
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MARINE LIABILITY ACT
|
| Bill S-17. Second reading
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1220
1225
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1330
| Mr. John Bryden |
1335
1340
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1345
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 128
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 6, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
CIVILIAN WAR-RELATED BENEFITS ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-41, an act to
amend the statute law in relation to veterans' benefits, as reported
(with amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: There are four motions in amendment
standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-41,
an act to amend the statute law in relation to veterans'
benefits.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 will be grouped for the purposes of
debate, but voted upon as follows:
A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 4;
[English]
Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-41 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 13 the
following new clause:
“6.7.1 For greater certainty, the disclosure referred to in
section 6.7 and any other disclosure of personal information
referred to in this Act shall be made solely for the purposes of
this Act, and in no case shall records containing personal
information be made available to another federal department or
agency or the personal information contained therein be disclosed
in any manner.”
That Bill C-41, in Clause 41, be amended by adding after line 6
on page 32 the following:
“109.2.1 For greater certainty, the disclosure referred to in
section 109.2 and any other disclosure of personal information
referred to in this Act shall be made solely for the purposes of
this Act, and in no case shall records containing personal
information be made available to another federal department or
agency or the personal information contained therein be disclosed
in any manner.”
That Bill C-41, in Clause 84, be amended by adding after line 36
on page 53 the following:
“(2.1) For greater certainty, the disclosure referred to in
this section and any other disclosure of personal information
referred to in this Act shall be made solely for the purposes of
this Act, and in no case shall records containing personal
information be made available to another federal department or
agency or the personal information contained therein be disclosed
in any manner.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, instead of speaking on these motions, I
ask for the unanimous consent of this House to withdraw the
three motions standing in my name.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to
withdraw his motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 withdrawn)
[English]
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-41, in Clause 46, be amended
“32. Subject to this Part, an award in”
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
already had an opportunity to tell the House that I support
the bill now before us. I did, however, mention three
reservations and I will repeat them today.
First, I was critical of the fact that RCMP officers were
excluded from compensation during their career for
service related injuries. This anomaly, this injustice, has
fortunately been corrected by an amendment introduced by the
government itself, in response to representations from the
opposition, including my own.
Second, I expressed my concern with respect to the three clauses
in the bill which allow the minister the dangerous power of
exchanging with various departments and agencies information of
a personal nature obtained under the terms of the legislation.
We must watch out for slip-ups. Big Brother is never far away.
We remember the megafile HRDC secretly compiled on every person
in this country using information provided by various federal
departments and agencies.
Third, and most important, I have already said how fortunate it
is that the contribution of civilian personnel who served
overseas during the wars has finally been recognized. And I
also pointed out how sad it is that it has taken 55 years to
achieve this.
1010
Bill C-41 does not take this huge delay into account. This bill
would be perfect if it had come to the House 50 years ago. That
was not the case, however, and there is nothing in Bill C-41 to
compensate for that half century that has passed. These people
are being penalized for our delay in looking after them. I
tried to bring that up yesterday with the minister in committee,
but to no avail.
The minister indicates that the average age of those eligible
would be around 79. This means that a number have already died,
and will have nothing but our esteem and recognition of their
merit.
Nevertheless, we approve of this bill despite its
imperfections.
We would not like to hold up benefits to this group through
delaying tactics. Most of them have been waiting now for 55
years. That is long enough. I would feel badly to make them
wait a day longer.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the
House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 3 agreed to)
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in with a further
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been much
commentary and some criticism of late about the speed with which
legislation is moving through the House. However, I doubt that
anyone could find fault with moving forward quickly a piece of
legislation that has been crafted to help Canada's veterans in
their remaining years. I will keep my comments brief today so
that we can proceed rapidly to approval.
Bill C-41 extends veterans' benefits to a number of worthy
civilian groups with wartime service overseas. It also helps to
meet the government's commitment to the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans Affairs by helping improve the
quality of life of serving members of the Canadian forces.
I want to thank the current members of the committee for
allowing the bill to proceed so efficiently through committee
stage so that we could debate today.
As I referred to earlier, this bill extends benefits to groups
that served in wartime virtually alongside our armed forces and
essentially under military type conditions of service. These
groups are the Newfoundland foresters, the Canadian firefighters,
the Red Cross and other nursing aides and staff as well as the
Ferry Command.
Over the course of the second world war, 3,680 Newfoundlanders
served in the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit, although many
later transferred to the British armed forces or served with the
British home guard. There are approximately 1,000 surviving
members today.
The Canadian firefighters were recruited to help in the blitz in
Britain. Of the original 400, perhaps 150 survive today.
The Red Cross and other nursing aides and staff performed a vital
service, essentially as unpaid volunteers, as ancillary health
care workers alongside medical units of the forces.
1015
Finally there is the Ferry Command, a special organization
formed to collect, test fly and deliver war planes primarily to
the European theatre. This group suffered truly terrible
casualties. Sadly, of the 200 Canadians perhaps only 50 survive
today.
The legislation gives these individuals greater access to the
income support programs and disability pensions administered by
Veterans Affairs Canada. It also opens up opportunities for
additional health care benefits including the veterans
independence program.
The bill helps veterans, a worthy objective by itself, but it
has also been designed to help current members of the forces. At
the present time Canadian forces members can only receive a
disability pension for a service related disability that occurred
in or resulted from service in a special duty area such as a
peacekeeping mission.
For those members who suffer a disability from fighting a flood
in Canada, for example, their disability can be assessed and
entitlement to a pension can be granted while they are still
serving. However no Veterans Affairs Canada pension can begin to
be paid until after they have left the Canadian forces.
The amendments in Bill C-41 remove this inequity and allow all
Canadian forces personnel with service related disabilities to
receive Veterans Affairs Canada pensions upon application
regardless of where the injury occurred.
There are also amendments in the bill which include a number of
minor improvements in wording and other legislative housekeeping.
A few examples are clarifying regulation making authorities,
correcting cross references, correcting the French name of the
department, repealing obsolete legislation, and benefit
improvements for couples who are both veterans.
Members of the House have an opportunity today to pass
legislation which improves the lives of brave men and women who
have served our country well in the past and those who continue
to serve our country well today. I urge that we do the right
thing and give unanimous consent to third reading of Bill C-41.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the majority of
Canadians watching this morning have been looking for the
benefits of the bill from a period of time when many members of
the House were not even born. On average they have been waiting
up to 55 years, which I doubt is the average age of members of
the House.
The audience out there who will be recipients of the benefits in
the bill is very few in number, compared to the brave people who
served on the frontlines during the war.
Younger Canadians and those looking at the bill in the House for
the first time ask what the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit
has to do with the war. As a matter of fact those people had
some tremendous skills not just in cutting trees, but skills in
building beams so that coal, a badly needed war commodity, could
be shipped. They were able to speed up the shipment of coal,
which was very valuable to munitions plants and so on.
My hon. colleague mentioned the number 3,680. As one who is a
bit older than the average member of the House I remember what
little attention they received. I also remember a movie about
those in the Ferry Command, but little attention was ever given
to those brave people. Because Newfoundland was not part of
Canada at the time, most of them joined the British army rather
than joining the Canadian army.
1020
I also have a comment about the Canadian firefighters. Somebody
picking up the bill, or even students in school, would ask what
firefighters have to do with veteran related bills. These were
brave people who went overseas. Many lost their lives in the
terrible blitzkrieg, particularly of the city of London. They
have had basic access to income tested veterans programs but
limited or no access to pensions for service related disabilities
and no access to veterans independence program.
We have some current problems with the VI program, but this is
not the bill or the time to be discussing them. I certainly will
be discussing the problems with the veterans independence program
in committee. Hopefully we can resolve some of the current
problems, particularly as they relate to veterans widows trying
to live alone in their own homes. If any of them are listening,
or members of the press, let me assure them that I would bet
money the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans
Affairs will deal with those issues and look after them pronto.
At least that is the feeling I have from the committee. Certainly
that is my aim as an official opposition member of that
committee.
I want to say a word about another group my hon. colleague
mentioned, the Ferry Command personnel. These people got some
recognition during this time, but they flew unarmed planes. They
flew sometimes in the worst of conditions, delivering the planes
across the Atlantic Ocean to Africa and Britain. Many times the
equipment and fuel supply were very limited and as a result many
lost their lives. There are not many of these honourable and
heroic people left in Canada. As a matter of fact, later on this
month there is a commemoration service to honour a few more than
50 of these great people.
It is a shame that Canada has taken 55 years to honour people
whose fatality record equalled that of the air force. It is not
a very bright chapter in Canadian history. Although many of them
may be listening this morning, they are probably feeling more
gratitude about the fact they are being recognized in the few
short years they have left to live rather than any remuneration
they may receive.
It has been 55 years. Many of these people are up to 90th
birthdays. It has been many years and some of them have missed
many opportunities. In spite of the benefits coming to these
deserving groups so late in their lives, at least the official
opposition, and I understand all opposition parties in the House,
will be supporting Bill C-41.
It is not a perfect bill. Whenever we deal with the recognition
of people, pension funding or liabilities, we almost have to make
a bill to fit every individual person. It is like providing some
aid to farms in western Canada, which I might point out is
virtually nil. It is very difficult to get a bill that will suit
everyone's needs.
I draw attention to the statement allegedly made by the Minister
of Veterans Affairs to the Atlantic media, which I found to be
very misleading. It bothers me somewhat, simply because he
suggested the opposition delayed the passage of the bill. I hope
it was a media error. I am proud to stand in the House today and
say no one, particularly in the official opposition, delayed the
passage of the bill. He claimed that we did not let the bill go
through all stages after second reading.
1025
If the bill had gone through at that time the significant
amendment the minister announced today regarding the RCMP would
probably not have been picked up. That is what all parties on
this side of the House wanted. This was accomplished, but I do
not think it was the result of the opposition in any way delaying
passage of the bill. I hope in due course the minister will make
the necessary corrections.
While I am on this point I would like to clear up another matter
which may mislead people. The bill, when passed, would give
pension benefits to certain civilian groups for overseas service
during the war. We all have to agree today that this is very
laudable. It is really not what these groups have asked for year
in, year out.
I am sure every member of the opposition and the minister know
full well these civilian groups were asking for the same benefits
the merchant navy vets were receiving, as was announced recently.
I am not opposed in any way to the merchant navy vets getting
benefits, but it is very difficult to draw a line between the
merchant navy and the Ferry Command, to draw a line between the
brave nurses who served at the front, or to draw a line between
those who went into the pits of the coal mines in Newfoundland.
It is a pretty small line to draw, and they did not get anything.
The minister singled out merchant navy vets for ex gratia
payments for this injustice but completely ignored these groups
in the process. I do not know why. I have some ideas why they
were ignored, but I suggest this should be the subject of another
bill which I recommend the minister introduce into the House as
soon as possible.
I have received piles of submissions and letters. As soon as I
was appointed by the official opposition as the member in charge
of veterans affairs, the letters came in from all over Canada.
I understand the concerns on both sides of the issue. A person
who has lived for many years with a disability, which we might
say was a frontline disability, is only now receiving
compensation. Those few hundred out there are asking the same
question. The precedent has been set.
The bill was rushed quickly through the House. We will not
block the bill, as we have said from the very beginning, but
there are some individuals out there who I hope are considered on
an individual basis. There are so few of them left there is no
reason why they should not be included.
Let me give an example. A retired sergeant named Michael
Schlueter contacted my office hoping to have some input in the
bill. The retired sergeant thought it would be possible for him
to appear as a witness before the standing committee, but I told
him that would not take place simply because we were not hearing
any witnesses. Let me speak about this chap. While on duty in
Canada he had part of his right arm blown off.
It was not in a war zone but it was related to a war effort.
Because he was injured in Canada and not in what we would call a
special duty area, he was not eligible for a disability pension
until he was discharged from the forces. Thank God we have
corrected that.
1030
However, we have to look at this because those people are
wondering, if the navy vets are eligible for retroactive
payments, what about the other people? Therein lies a very
significant problem. If we were confronted with the sergeant,
how would anyone in the House answer that? I do not need to
single him out. There are probably hundreds of them. Any other
Canadian can receive a disability pension while they are
employed. The bill corrects that injustice so that from now on
anyone in the Canadian forces or the RCMP can collect a
disability pension if they are injured on the job.
The sergeant, who has only one arm now, told me that the bill
creates two classes of disabled ex-armed forces personnel: first,
those who will collect a disability pension if they are injured
after the bill is passed; and second, the others who are
ineligible for a disability pension because they were injured
before the bill was passed.
That is a pretty sobering thought, is it not? I hope the
committee will work on that and really think about it. We just
cannot leave out those individual Canadians because of some magic
deadline. There are only a few hundred of them left and we need
to recognize them.
In conclusion, the minister and the committee have to consider
ex gratia payments for those deserving individuals I have just
mentioned. I do not think we can run away or hide from that. I
really do not think Canadians would want the House to do so.
I applaud the minister for working with the opposition and
taking seriously our concerns about the RCMP. I fully endorse
the amendment. I could not care less whether the amendment came
from this side of the House or even from another party. The fact
is that it is there and it needs to be there.
I give my consent to the bill because of the humanitarian
treatment accorded to the widows of vets receiving compassionate
awards. There are some issues still to mention but we will deal
with them later.
I give credit to the department for recognizing its
accountability when mistakes are made in calculating payments but
not burdening vets or their widows with having to repay
overpayments. I have been through some of that and it is
generally wee sums of money. People at that age, some of them
now living alone, get flustered when they see a bill coming in
that they do not understand. I commend the government for making
that movement.
I am pleased that the provisions governing the amount of income
support is calculated in such a way that it benefits the veterans
more than it does the department.
I am pleased to support the bill but I want to caution members
and those listening in who may benefit in some small way. I hope
this is not the end of our responsibility on the committee. I
think we have a lot of study to do yet. There are people out
there from Prince Rupert to St. John's who are striving to live
alone in their own homes. We have to go back and make sure we
find a way to recognize them more completely.
1035
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, better
late than never.
Our government has just realized, a half-century
after the fact, that various categories of Canadian civilians,
including firefighters and members of the Red Cross, shared the
same merits and the same hazards during the second world war and
the Korean war as uniformed personnel. Yet they not been
entitled before now to the pensions and other benefits that are
a concrete indication of the national gratitude enjoyed by war
veterans.
Bill C-41, which we are considering at the moment, is intended,
and I congratulate myself on this, to correct this injustice,
but it achieves this end only partially, as I will soon show.
Another category of deserving civilian fighters has waited 55
years for recognition. I am speaking of the sailors of the
merchant marine. The injustice they suffered has now been
corrected.
The bill before us today concerns other categories of civilians
serving abroad. They are primarily the members of the Corps of
Canadian Fire Fighters for Service in the United Kingdom. These
men helped fight the fires ignited nightly by the German
bombardment of London, in particular, during the first two years
of the war.
Others benefiting from the bill are the Canadian members of the
voluntary aid detachment of the British Red Cross during the
first world war. It took 82 years to remember them.
Welfare workers and voluntary aid workers in the second world
war and the Korean war are also finally being recognized.
Not forgotten either are the civilian pilots in the Ferry
Command, who often at the risk of their lives convoyed aircraft
built here and destined for the European front between Canada
and Great Britain.
The members of these various categories of civilians deserving
of recognition by their country are, under this bill, being
accorded the same treatment as military veterans and therefore
are entitled to a pension. As many of them are dead, their
widows will benefit. And if the widow is dead, no one will
benefit.
The problem is that this good legislation will not be
retroactive. It does not provide any compensation for the 55
years during which all these brave people were forgotten by
their government.
This is an injustice. From the moment we recognize that these
people are entitled to national recognition just like military
personnel, who have been getting pensions since the end of the
war, it is totally unfair to make them pay for the fact that the
government waited for over half a century before acknowledging
their contribution and thus their rights to national
recognition.
I do not find it acceptable for the government to permit itself
what would be considered a reprehensible abuse of power, had it
been an individual's treatment of his employees. Can anyone
imagine the head of a firm admitting that some of his staff had
been unfairly treated for years and agreeing to remedy the
situation only if the remedy were not retroactive?
But this principle of obvious equity does not seem popular with
the government, if we are to judge by its reaction to the
Canadian Human Rights Commission ruling ordering it to
compensate those of its employees who, because they were women,
had for years been paid less than their male counterparts. It
will be recalled that Ottawa held out against making these
retroactive payments for a long time. It only did so because it
was forced to by the tribunal.
The purpose of Bill C-41 is to correct another anomaly and this
is a good thing. This one involves members of the Canadian Armed
Forces who are still serving but are suffering from
service related disabilities. These men and women are not
currently entitled to disability pension before their release.
This situation is going to be corrected. We need hardly say that
we are in favour of this provision of the bill.
However, we could not understand why clause 46 excluded the RCMP
from this measure. I called on the government to withdraw this
provision from the bill. We are pleased to hear that it just
amended the act accordingly.
1040
Another anomaly was also corrected. As the result of an error
for which the recipient is in no way responsible, a veteran
might receive a higher amount of pension than his entitlement
for a certain period of time. Until now, when the error was
detected, the person concerned was required to pay back the
overpayment under conditions and a deadline that might be
prejudicial to his quality of life. From now on, the victims of
these administrative errors will be treated more humanely. We
approve of this provision, while once again regretting that it
has been so long in coming.
To summarize and to conclude, we support this piece of
legislation, but we regret that it comes some 50 years too late
and that it does not provide for the payment of an indemnity to
recipients for this delay. However, as I said at the start,
better late than never, and we will support this bill.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. colleague from the NDP for switching with me. I will be
short so that she will have time. I hope everyone has a chance
to say a few words with regard to Bill C-41.
I am so pleased that I have been part and parcel of the
committee that unanimously agreed to Bill C-41. When I was five
years old, two of my brothers served overseas during the
conflict, so I know there is a need for this bill. During that
time the Red Cross, the Ferry Command, the Newfoundland Overseas
Forestry Unit and all the civilian forces made sure that the
needs of my brothers and all the others in the military were met.
They did their job in order to bring peace around the world.
I am also pleased to see that the bill deals with disability. We
must never forget that most of our veterans are now seniors who
are aging every day. I hope and pray that the bill will be
expanded a bit to include veterans' hospital care because these
people need to be taken care of as well. Many of our veterans'
hospitals have been closed down and replaced with tiny units. We
need to look at that because it is not enough for these people.
I also want to make sure that the rest of the compensation
package is in place for the merchant navy men and their widows. I
have been assured by the minister that he will work tooth and
nail to make sure that happens. The government is still
processing some of the applications that have been put forward
for the compensation packages. We need to expedite that as
quickly as possible.
Many more applications were received than had been anticipated.
We thought there would be around 4,500, but my understanding is
that about 14,000 have been filed and it has not been easy. It
has been a lot of work. However, when it comes to the merchant
navy men and their widows I will never stop speaking out for
them. They are very dear to my heart. Even this morning I had
calls from merchant navy men asking me about their compensation
packages.
When it comes to the civilian war-related benefits act we must
always remember that it was brought in by the PC government and
Gerry Merrithew, who was the minister of veterans affairs at that
time. He is from Saint John, New Brunswick. That act is now
being amended to include more. I congratulate the minister for
expanding upon the act, but he should remember that it was
brought in by the PC government. We saw that there were people
who had been terribly neglected and that there was a need for
change.
I want everyone to remember that everyone on the committee, our
friends from the Bloc, our friends from the NDP, our friends from
the Canadian Alliance and the PC Party, agreed with the minister
on the bill and unanimously agreed to bring the amendments to the
civilian war related benefits act before the House of Commons.
All of us know there are those who are suffering today and those
who are in need.
1045
I agree with my hon. friend from the Bloc that indeed the RCMP
must be included. We cannot just eliminate those RCMP officers.
They put their lives on the line for all of us who sit in the
House of Commons. They put their lives on the line so that we
could have the peace which we we have around the country. The
Red Cross, the Ferry Command, the firefighters and all of them
put their lives on the line as well.
I trust that there will be no opposition whatsoever to Bill
C-41. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleague from
the NDP for allowing me to speak now because I have another
commitment later in the day.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am proud
to speak today to Bill C-41, an act to improve the veterans'
benefits for our veterans. I would like to say that the NDP will
be supporting this bill.
I would also like to say that over the last three and a half
years I have been very honoured to work with the legions in my
riding. Those are the Somme legion, the centennial branch and
also the army, navy, air force club. They have been able to
deepen my understanding of the issues facing veterans in our
communities.
I would also like to thank the wonderful people at the family
resources centre at both Shannon Park and Shearwater. They also
have helped me to understand the problems facing people who are
in the armed forces and their families. It is because of these
people that I am able to work at the level I do.
In addressing the context of Bill C-41, first I should express
some scepticism about the government's intent on following
through with its commitments to Canada's vets. I must say that
over half of the claims received from the merchant mariners are
still waiting to be processed and we are all very concerned about
that. These Canadians have risked life and limb. During the war
they worked to deliver food, fuel, goods and people who were
under attack from German submarines, facing casualties and, all
too often, death.
Every month more of these brave members of our community succumb
to illness and old age. It has been estimated that merchant
mariners are dying at the rate of 12 per month. Veterans affairs
reportedly has 45 people working on these claims but that is
clearly not enough. Staffing levels should be increased to meet
the demand created by the merchant mariners' claims.
If the government wishes Bill C-41 to be taken seriously by the
people who would be affected by it, it should state here and now
that it is committed to ensuring that all merchant mariners who
are entitled to compensation receive their full benefits and that
it will not to turn its back on them after the first payments
have been made.
This legislation sets out to extend veterans' benefits to a
number of civilian groups with overseas service and would allow
serving members of the Canadian armed forces to receive
disability pensions while still serving. I am pleased to see
this. I believe that the government is responding to issues
raised by SCONDVA. Allowing serving members of the Canadian
armed forces to receive disability pensions while still serving
is indeed a step forward.
New Democrats feel that the government should be doing much more
to address broader issues relating to working and living
conditions for our troops.
We know that the military personnel who live on bases in various
parts of the country are contending with old and deteriorating
accommodations which are among some of the worst found in the
country. From leaky roofs to cramped, old and deteriorating
spaces, Canadian forces personnel deserve much better from the
country which they have admirably served, and in particular from
the Liberal government responsible for these decisions.
We are very interested to see that the Liberal government has
cash on hand to spend $15 million on a brand spanking new armoury
in Shawinigan which, by great coincidence, is in the riding of
the Prime Minister.
Bill C-41 sets out to ensure serving forces personnel may
receive disability pensions while still serving. New Democrats
agree that troops serving Canadians by assisting with crises,
such as the great ice storm of 1998, or fighting the floods on
the Red River or working as peacekeepers in Bosnia, would be able
to collect a veterans affairs disability pension while continuing
to serve their country.
Bill C-41 would ensure equality with members whose disabilities
arose in special duty areas and reserves.
1050
We support the legislation as it would extend veterans benefits
to certain civilian groups who served overseas in close support
of the war effort. This includes such groups as the Canadian Red
Cross, St. John Ambulance, Newfoundland overseas foresters,
Canadian firefighters and pilots who ferried over the Atlantic,
and other groups who assisted the military overseas.
The legislation will provide these individuals with greater
access to veterans affairs Canada income support and disability
pensions and additional health care benefits including the
veterans independence program.
The overseas crew of the Ferry Command assisted the war effort
by ferrying military aircraft across the Atlantic Ocean from
North America. The Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit assisted
the war effort by cutting timber in Scotland which was then
predominantly needed in British coal mining operations to fuel
the war effort.
While Canadians were negotiating the terms of union several
years after the war, it was agreed that Newfoundland air force
members would be eligible for veterans benefits from Canada but
members of the forestry unit were not included in the
arrangement.
During the second world war the corps of civilian Canadian
firefighters for service in the United Kingdom assisted the war
effort by fighting fires in Britain that were created by the
dreaded blitz. Also during the war overseas welfare workers,
which included members of the Canadian Red Cross and St. John
Ambulance, served as welfare workers overseas in support of the
injured.
One of the most important aspects of the bill is working to
ensure equity of access to services and benefits to all Canadian
forces members regardless of whether the injuries occurred in
Canada or on a foreign deployment. At the present time Canadian
forces members can only receive a Veterans Affairs Canada
disability pension for a service related disability if it
occurred in or resulted from service in a special duty area such
as a peacekeeping mission.
For Canadian forces members hurt while fighting a flood in
Canada, their disability can be assessed and they can be entitled
to a disability pension only if they are still serving. However,
no Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension can begin to be
paid until after they have left the Canadian forces.
These amendments would remove this inequity and allow all
Canadian forces members with a service related disability to
receive a Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension upon
application regardless of where the injury occurred.
I have a couple of concerns that I would like to raise about
Bill C-41. One of them was raised yesterday in the House by my
colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle. That is the issue of the
treatment of first nations veterans who were discriminated
against during the first world war, the second world war and the
Korean War in comparison to non-first nations veterans. My
colleague has also put forward a private member's bill in order
to try to receive appropriate compensation and recognition of
these very important veterans. This is one area that is not
dealt with in Bill C-41 and we would like to see much more
attention given to this issue.
Bill C-41, the veterans benefits legislation, takes some
important steps to support the veterans in this country. It
takes some steps in recognizing the contributions and the great
sacrifices that our fighting forces have given to this country.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we have an understanding in the
House with all the political parties that this bill should
pass. The official opposition and the official opposition critic
agrees with this bill. The Bloc, the NDP, the Progressive
Conservative Party and the hon. member for Saint John and the
government all agree with what is in this bill.
1055
I want to thank the political parties. This is the third
reading. These are the final moments. When this is proclaimed,
a great many people in Canada will be able to receive the full
benefits of our veterans pensions and disability pensions that we
have in Canada, and a great many Canadians are awaiting the
passage of the bill.
In conclusion, I want to thank publicly the Royal Canadian
Legion for the effort that it has put into this; the Army, Navy
and Air Force Veterans In Canada; Mr. Cliff Chadderton of the
National Council of Veterans Organizations who spent so much time
on this and other legislation on behalf of all veterans; Mr.
Lloyd Thompson of Botwood, Newfoundland, who represented the
Newfoundland Foresters; Mr. Lang of the Ferry Command of
Montreal; and everybody else who spent a lot of time and who have
been at this now for years.
Finally, I want to thank the House of Commons which is about to
pass the legislation with unanimous consent. On behalf of all
veterans we say thank you.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the
House that a message has been received from the Senate informing
this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the
concurrence of the House is desired.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SIDS AWARENESS MONTH
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, sudden infant death syndrome takes the lives of three
children under the age of one in Canada every week of the year. I
can imagine no worse tragedy for a parent than to put an
apparently healthy baby to bed in his or her crib and never to
have the baby wake up.
SIDS is the leading cause of death of babies between the ages of
one month and one year.
October is SIDS Awareness Month and a perfect time to
acknowledge the extra work done by the Canadian Foundation for
the Study of Infant Death working in collaboration with Health
Canada, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Canadian
Institute for Child Health. They provide education, awareness
and support to parents who have been through this terrible
tragedy. Thanks largely to their efforts the incidence of infant
deaths due to SIDS has declined significantly in the past few
years.
I know all members of the House will want to congratulate the
Canadian Foundation for the Study of Infant Death on the success
of their work to date and to wish them all the best in their
future efforts.
* * *
CRIME
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians will be much safer under the justice platform
released by the leader of the Canadian Alliance yesterday. We
have seen far too many broken promises and too many failures of
the present Liberal government to adequately address the concerns
of our citizens toward providing safer communities and stronger
communities.
The Liberals have it all wrong. Instead of being overly
concerned with offenders of our laws, we must take a tougher
approach to crime in order to provide a safer environment for our
families.
A Canadian Alliance government will bring forth truth in
sentencing. It will actually do something about youth justice.
It will change our prison system so that release is earned and so
that drugs are removed. It will repeal the costly firearm law
and replace it with a practical firearms control system. We will
work in harmony with the provinces and territories to address
smuggling, drugs and border control.
It is long past time that Canada regained control over crime. It
is long past time we had a government that will actually do
something about criminal justice rather than just talk about it.
Under the new leader of the Canadian Alliance, we will be
offering a clear alternative on justice issues.
* * *
1100
MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that
October 2 to 8 is Mental Illness Awareness Week.
This national public education campaign was launched in 1992
with the objective of de-stigmatizing mental illness, providing
information on mental illnesses and their treatment and promoting
public discussion and informed decision making about mental
illness. The motto of Mental Illness Awareness Week is “Let's
unmask mental illness”.
According to Statistics Canada, one in eight Canadians will be
hospitalized for mental illnesses, such as major depression, thus
impacting substantially on the lives of those affected.
Mental Illness Awareness Week provides an opportunity for
Canadians to increase their awareness and understanding of mental
illnesses and overcome the stigma often faced by persons with
mental illness.
Let us all join in wishing those organizations every success.
* * *
THE LATE DR. MICHAEL SMITH
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Michael Smith, Canada's
leading scientist and 1993 winner of the Nobel prize, who passed
away Wednesday at the age of 68.
Dr. Smith immigrated to Canada and joined the Department of
Biochemistry at the University of British Columbia. In these
early days of the genetics revolution he developed a critical
technique that has become central to the field of biotechnology.
His dedication to leading edge science continued, particularly
through his leadership in the creation of the B.C. genome centre
and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Dr. Smith's work has paved the way for new treatments offering
hope to Canadians and people around the world. He was dedicated
to Canada and inspired the next generation of researchers. He
donated his Nobel prize award to schizophrenia research and to an
endowment for women in science.
It is appropriate for all of us in the House to take a moment to
reflect on and recognize this truly great Canadian.
* * *
[Translation]
LABOUR MARKET
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is good news
for the economy this morning: according to Statistics Canada's
most recent report, the unemployment rate in Canada dropped to
6.8% in September. Employment rose by 56,000, divided almost
equally between full and part time jobs.
Despite what the Canadian Alliance leader had to say yesterday,
the direction to take is definitely that recommended by the
Liberal government.
These encouraging labour market figures from Statistics Canada
have ramifications for the Canadian economy as a whole, and
benefit Quebec as well.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
let me tell you how the Canadian Alliance tax plan is better for
taxpayers.
The Liberals tax single people when they earn over $8,000. The
Canadian Alliance will let them earn their first $10,000 tax
free.
The Liberals give a spousal exemption of only $6,140. The
Canadian Alliance will allow $10,000.
The Liberals tax middle income earners at 23%. We would tax
them at only 17%.
The Liberals extract over $1,000 in taxes from a family of four
with a $26,000 income. We would let them go tax free.
The Liberals love their gasoline tax and the GST on top of the
tax. We would reduce the federal excise tax by at least three
cents per litre.
Instead of soaking employers and employees at $5.76 per $100 of
earnings for EI, we would reduce that to $4.80.
There is much more, Mr. Speaker, but you can see that everyone
would be better off under the Canadian Alliance plan.
* * *
FEDNOR
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday afternoon the secretary of state responsible for FedNor
and the members of the northern Ontario caucus gathered to
announce federal support of over $250,000 for Laurentian
University's office of health initiatives.
This funding will provide our northern Ontario communities with
the resources to develop the best model and proposal to convince
the province of Ontario to establish a northern and rural medical
school in our region. This school will provide a real long term
solution to the doctor shortage in northern Ontario.
The $250,000 in funding was provided by FedNor. Because of good
projects like this one, the northern Ontario Liberal caucus
fought to make FedNor a permanent program with increased
resources.
1105
By the way, the reform alliance announced last night that it
would cancel FedNor. I guess it is true that the reform alliance
has no consideration whatsoever for the needs of northern
Ontario.
* * *
[Translation]
FARMING FAMILY OF THE YEAR
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during a recent ceremony in Lévis, the Fondation de la famille
terrienne selected the family of Lucille and Hector Lebel, who
live in Saint-Épiphane de Rivière-du-Loup, as Quebec's farming
family of the year.
This prestigious award is given in recognition of strong
personal and work ethics and will be presented to the family at
a solemn mass at the parish church of Saint-Épiphane, on October 28.
This fine family from our riding stands out for its commitment
to excellence, its farming expertise and its unstinting
involvement in our community life.
The Bloc Quebecois members are proud to congratulate the family
of Lucille and Hector Lebel on receiving this much-deserved award
for the year 2000.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FIREARMS CENTRE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on September 22, 1994 the justice
minister addressed a rally on Parliament Hill, promising the
21,000 fed up responsible gun owners “We do not want
to take away your hunting rifles or discourage people from the
responsible use of firearms for hunting and shooting”.
This week the retired chief of police, Phil Morlock, sent me a
sad letter. I will quote:
I have a 16 year old daughter who wishes to hunt this fall. She
has passed the Ontario hunter safety and federal firearm
licensing courses (97% in both) but the new law says she must
also have a Minors Permit.
I phoned the Canadian Firearms Centre where I was informed that
they do not have any capacity, staff or mandate to handle Minors
Permits at the federal level as that is now the responsibility of
the Chief Firearms Officer for each province. I phoned the C.F.O.
contact number for Ontario. The answering machine instructed me
to leave a message with the assurance that `someone would get
back to me'. Someone did call back—from the Canadian Firearms
Centre—telling me that they did not have the capacity or staff
to handle Minors Permits at the federal level.
If that is not discouraging hunting, what is?
* * *
CHINESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the member for Kootenay—Columbia deeply offended all
Canadians by calling Canada's Chinese community a threat to
national security.
Following question period on September 20, I received a letter
from the president of the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Chinese
Community Organizations condemning the member for
Kootenay—Columbia.
We already know that the leader of the Canadian Alliance said
nothing when members of his party insulted the work ethic of
Atlantic Canadians. Now we can add Chinese Canadians to their
hit list.
Let us call a spade a spade. The Reform Party may have changed
its name but it represents nothing more than a thin veneer of
intolerance. In fact, leaders in the Chinese community are
asking if the intentions of the member for Kootenay—Columbia are
simply racist, insane or both.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to
withdraw the word “racist”.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word
racist. I have the letter from the community to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre.
* * *
SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard this song before. In 1982 Saskatchewan
voters elected a youthful, athletic sloganeer named Grant Devine
on promises from his right wing political alliance to cut taxes
for the rich and still somehow improve services like health care
and education.
What was the result? Nine years later our taxes have doubled
and our services have been gutted. The free dental plan for
children and the prescription drug plan that covered every
resident of the province have been wiped out. Medicare is in
shambles. The alliance also left the people of Saskatchewan
carrying a debt of $15,000 for every man, woman and child.
Those conservative alliance people in Saskatchewan left a 60
year mortgage for working people and farmers. They milked them
dry to pay for a one time tax party for the rich. Those same
people in Saskatchewan are now part of the Canadian conservative
reform alliance. Their policies nearly ruined Saskatchewan.
Canadians should not be tricked into believing they will work for
Canada. We should remember the lessons of history so we do not
get fooled again.
* * *
[Translation]
YANNICK NEZET-SÉGUIN
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on September 24, the audience of 3,000 who had come to hear
Verdi's Requiem at the salle Wilfrid-Pelletier had the pleasure
of seeing Yannick Nezet-Séguin awarded the prestigious Virginia
Parker Prize presented annually by the Canada Council.
This young orchestra conductor, whom Claude Gingras readily
describes as a brilliant talent and a veritable phenomenon,
joins other famous recipients of this award from Quebec,
including Louis Lortie, Sophie Rolland, Marc-André Hamelin,
Karina Gauvin, Alain Trudel and Richard Raymond.
1110
Barely 25 years of age, he has been the assistant conductor and
chorus director with the Opéra de Montréal since 1998. He was
the guest conductor of the Orchestre métropolitain de Montréal
in 1998 and is now its artistic director and principal
conductor.
Mr. Nezet-Séguin, the extraordinary ovation that followed the
performance of Verdi's Requiem was in tribute to your youth,
your talent and your sensitivity. It is clearly the prelude to
an international career. The Bloc Quebecois salutes you with
pride.
* * *
[English]
DEBT REDUCTION
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Alliance has been calling for debt reduction but as with so many
other issues, like its tax policy, it keeps changing the numbers.
It originally called for an annual payment of $3 billion on the
debt. It has now changed its mind and called for a debt pay-down
of $6 billion annually.
It is time for the Alliance to wake up. The train has left the
station and the Alliance is not on it. The government has
already paid down more than $6 billion of debt per year over the
last three fiscal years, for a total of $18.7 billion. By making
these payments we are freeing up more than $1 billion annually in
interest payments, which can be used to address the needs and
priorities of Canadians.
This action on our debt is yet another dividend from the
responsible fiscal management that the Liberal government
continues to provide to Canadians. Under our leadership things
will just keep getting better and better.
* * *
NOVA SCOTIA 4-H PRO-SHOW
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
September 29 I had the pleasure to attend the 23rd annual Nova
Scotia 4-H Pro-Show located at the South Shore exhibition grounds
in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia.
This year's show brought 1,800 4-H members and leaders to
Lunenburg county. It was estimated that by closing day over
10,000 people had visited the show, making Nova Scotia's 4-H
Pro-Show 2000 one of the most successful ever.
The official opening platform guests were led to the stage by
Arthur Young's oxen and entertained by the Lunenburg County
Fiddlers. Everyone was welcomed by Bridgewater town crier Ossie
Stiles. The hon. Ernest Fage, Minister of Agriculture for the
province of Nova Scotia, along with the provincial 4-H king and
queen and co-chairs Lorraine Wile and Robert Joudrew, opened
the show with a parade of clubs representing every county in Nova
Scotia.
Special recognition must be given to all the volunteers who
worked behind the scenes and made this year's 23rd annual Nova
Scotia 4-H show a fantastic success. They showcased Lunenburg
county, introduced the rest of Nova Scotia to typical South Shore
hospitality and, most importantly, supported 4-H.
* * *
NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Dr. Clifford Shearing, a University of Toronto criminologist, was
a valued member of the Patten commission that recommended
important reforms to the policing service in Northern Ireland.
Dr. Shearing recently expressed his grave concerns about the
current failure of the British government to focus on the main
points of the Patten report. The central theme of the report is
the need to establish a holistic approach to policing in Northern
Ireland.
He further warned that the report cannot be cherry-picked but
must be implemented in full if it is to win the confidence and
support of both communities in Northern Ireland. An impartial
police force acceptable to both communities is a sine qua non for
success in the peace process.
I join with Dr. Shearing in calling upon the Government of
Britain to implement in full both the letter and the spirit of
the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance released its
election platform yesterday and oh, what a platform it was,
was it not?
A cornerstone of our platform is to do what? It is to save that
which is most important to Canadians: medicare. Why? Because
it was this government that slashed $25 billion in transfer
payments over the last seven years.
What do we want to do? We will restore funding to health care.
We will give the provinces a five year stable funding platform.
We will make sure that Canadians get accessible health care for
all, regardless of the amount of money they have in their
pockets.
Why? Because we are not prepared to have the two tier health
care system that we have today as a result of the government
cutting health care for Canadians.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the last
election the people of Nova Scotia declared that the Liberals
were irrelevant, so I thought that Liberal members could use a
primer on what the current issues are down home.
1115
The health care crisis is getting worse, not better. The
Dartmouth General Hospital will soon be no more than a glorified
triage centre and nursing home. There are too few nurses, too
few doctors. We have the highest tuition and some of the biggest
student debt loads in the country.
People are worried about their drinking water. They are scared
about the chemicals in our harbour and time bombs like the tar
ponds. They want federal environmental standards that stop
people from getting sick. We are all ashamed that one in five of
our children is living in poverty.
These are the relevant issues and problems in my community. They
call for better programs, not better public relations. They call
for representatives who will speak out, not apologize and duck
and weave. I am proud to raise issues which are relevant to the
people of Dartmouth. So let's rock.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians were outraged at the
scandal in HRDC that gave rise to 20 police investigations. Now
we find out that the minister for ACOA has written a letter to a
Newfoundland company saying that it would only get $10 million in
ACOA funding if it moved to the minister's riding.
This is the most blatant abuse of ministerial power that I have
ever seen. When will the Prime Minister ask for the minister's
resignation?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's information is
incorrect. They have announced that they will do away with ACOA,
wipe it out.
It was only a short while ago when the premier of Alberta and
his cabinet stood and proclaimed “We do not propose scrapping
the regional development programs of the federal government”.
That day in Alberta is not the same as this day in Ottawa, and
this policy today is just too day for Canadians.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it really is old style politics on
that side of the House. It is time for a change.
The minister says we are incorrect. Let me quote from his
letter: “I have informed ACOA that the federal government will
be prepared to negotiate a further five year agreement for
operation online if the entire operation were moved from St.
John's to Grand Falls-Windsor”. He says “My position is
final”.
Moving $10 million dollars from a Tory riding to his riding is a
straightforward abuse of power. When will the minister resign?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member is not aware, in
the new program announced by the government under the community
development program the funding is restricted to non-urban areas
as defined by Statistics Canada.
The reason for that is that urban areas like the city of St.
John's have an unemployment rate that approximates the national
average, which now is at a 25 year low in Canada. We will fund
the areas that need dollars.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister has been in power for 25
years in the House. He is telling us now that his riding needs
$10 million. Where has he been for the last 25 years? Where has
he been for the last seven years?
I quote his letter: “If you move to my riding you get $10
million”. This is blatant outside politics. The minister
should resign. He knows it. When will he resign and do the
honourable thing?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a
federal-provincial agreement which is up for renegotiation.
The fact of the matter is that while the unemployment rate
inside the overpass in the city of St. John's is approximately
equal to the national average, outside the overpass the
unemployment rate ranges from 25% to 45%. That is where economic
diversity is needed and that is where the government will invest
taxpayer money.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this is absolutely outrageous behaviour. It speaks
volumes about the arrogance of the minister that he would put on
paper the type of scandalous behaviour we already know goes on
every day in the Liberal government.
We are seeing a situation where he as the minister is directing
taxpayer funds into his riding. He is telling ACOA that it must
send that money into his riding. When will the minister resign?
1120
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as usual the premise to the hon. member's question is
wrong. The minister is doing a terrific job for all Canadians.
Why does the hon. member not explain that when his leader was a
minister in the Alberta government he funnelled $8 million in
assistance to businesses in his hometown of Red Deer over the
last 10 years, including $55,000 for a muffin shop, $29,000 for a
hair salon and nail service, and get this, $100,000 for an ice
cream parlour.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, time has passed the Deputy Prime Minister a long time
ago. It has left him behind.
The Prime Minister has an obligation to get rid of the minister.
We have a situation here where a minister has taken money from
the taxpayers and is funnelling it into his riding right before
an election for his own benefit. It is that straightforward. We
have a letter that says as much.
When will the minister do the honourable thing and resign? This
is nothing but political blackmail.
The Speaker: Order, please. I want the hon. member to
withdraw the word blackmail.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear from the hon. member's question that his day
and the day of his party are long gone.
Yesterday in Kitchener the leader of the Alliance announced his
party's old fashioned, outdated, meanspirited platform. Yesterday
in Kitchener the Leader of the Opposition and the Alliance Party
met their Waterloo.
* * *
[Translation]
MOSEL VITELIC
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
semi-conductor plant planned by Mosel Vitelic for the west of
Montreal is the type of positive job creation project that
deserves the utmost attention.
While the key players have made known the concrete measures they
intend to put into place for the coming Mosel Vitelic plant, the
federal government has yet to be heard from.
Can the Minister of Industry tell us whether the government has
reached a decision on its participation in this project?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government is the one who proposed that Mosel Vitelic
set up a semi-conductor plant in Canada. We are the ones who
invited them to come here and consider various sites.
As for financial participation by the government, however, we
need to be satisfied with their business plan and their
technological plan, and negotiations are ongoing. We are not
going to conduct them publicly.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I can
understand the minister's position of not wanting to negotiate
publicly. But at a time when there is greater and greater
consensus in Quebec—the Banque Nationale, the Mouvement
Desjardins, the key western leaders—the minister is hiding behind
pointless procrastination and pussy-footing.
Is he, or is he not, waiting for an election call before
announcing his participation in this project?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I listened with interest to what these bankers had to
say, but they did not indicate how much they were prepared to
invest in the project.
We are all in favour of a project such as this. It is a great
opportunity for the Greater Montreal area and also for Canada,
but not at any price. The taxpayers' money must be administered
with care. I am sure the hon. member agrees.
* * *
THE MIDDLE EAST
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the peace
process in the Middle East is in serious jeopardy: at least 70
people have died in the past week, and the region has become a
powder keg.
This week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said he was concerned
about the situation. Yet he could not find anything better to do
than to ask Palestinian and Israeli leaders to negotiate.
1125
What initiative does the government, which is a member of the
security council, intend to take so that Canada can make a
concrete contribution to the efforts that will bring a long
awaited peace to the population of that region?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification) (Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we condemn
the violence that led to these casualties.
We regularly, almost on a daily basis, urge both sides to find a
solution, to negotiate and come up with a peace plan that will
bring stability to the region. We do so regularly and
energetically.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week,
the Paris meeting failed when the Palestinian request for an
international inquiry was rejected by Israel. Israel accepts
Washington's involvement, but the Palestinians find that
involvement too biased.
Canada is a friend of Israel and also a friend of the
Palestinian people. In light of this status, could it not take
the initiative and offer its contribution to help end the
conflict in that region?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification) (Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
prepared to do just about anything to ensure stability.
We even brought the matter up at the security council two days
ago, in an attempt to bring together the two sides to find a
solution. We will continue to urge them to find a way to get
along and to work and live together.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday Alberta's
health minister stated:
Maybe we should be rebating that health care premium to those
people who, after an annual check-up, demonstrate that: their
blood pressure is within a certain range, their cholesterol count
is in check, their weight is within a certain range and their
blood sugars are in check.
The health minister is obviously aware of this. Is he prepared
to take his responsibility to prevent such an initiative?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it appears the Alberta health minister was musing aloud. There
may be more details he wishes to make public.
All I can say from what little I have seen of these statements
yesterday is that we have always believed that the responsibility
for funding the health care system, as well as access to services
under the health care system, should be universal. That is the
principle from which we start and that principle should be
respected throughout the system.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, here we
go again. Bill 11 revisited. What prevents the government from
mustering up the courage to say, plain and simple, that this is a
tax on the sick? This is a tax on people with chronic illnesses,
with mental infirmities, with physical disabilities.
Why does the government not take the opportunity today to say
that it is wrong, that it is unfair, that it is not acceptable,
and that it will not be permitted?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member may know more than we do or the public does about what
Minister Mar intended or said. Let us wait and find out what the
man is saying.
The member can rest assured that if there is any proposal that
will undermine the Canada Health Act we will be there to respond.
The member should be joining with us in responding to and
opposing the pernicious platform unveiled by the reform alliance
yesterday with respect to health care. There is the real threat
to medicare, sitting right over there.
* * *
MARKET REVENUE INSURANCE PROGRAM
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of agriculture. It relates to the
market revenue insurance program, which is cost shared by the
federal and the Ontario governments. The minister knows that is
an amber program under WTO rules like NISA and like crop
insurance.
Will the minister give the House a firm commitment today that
the federal government is prepared to extend the MRI program
beyond 2001?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a year ago we extended that program for
two years. We have said to the Ontario government, my
counterpart in the province of Ontario, that we are prepared to
discuss the future of that program.
It is a companion program, and the right hon. member will know
what I mean by that. We have been discussing the safety net
program in the province of Ontario with the industry and with the
minister in Ontario, and we will continue to do that.
1130
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister will know that for thousands of Ontario farmers
discussions are not enough. They know and the House should know
that StatsCan in August reported that there were on the prairies
some 22,000 fewer farmers this fall than there were last fall.
That crisis is now spreading to Ontario.
When will the discussions end? Will the minister give us a firm
date by which the Government of Canada will announce its
unequivocal commitment to extending the MRI program rather than
leaving Ontario farmers subject to—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member might want to check
the support of the province of Ontario to agriculture in the last
number of years. They have reduced that support, whereas the
federal government has increased its support.
For example, this government increased its amount of support to
the province of Ontario for market revenue, crop insurance and
NISA from $106 million to $137 million. That is an increase of
$31 million.
The province of Ontario has not indicated yet to me or to the
farmers of Ontario what they are going to do with that. I
suggest that is some money that—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister responsible for ACOA has finally tipped his
hand and shown us the real reason that the government loves the
regional development agencies.
With an election looming, the minister just could not resist
putting his sticky fingers into ACOA's business. He has offered
$10 million to Operation On-Line but with the condition that
it agrees to move its high tech operations to his riding.
Canadians will no longer put up with this blatant old style
politics. When will this minister resign?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian Alliance is asking me to
sign my name to a piece of paper extending a five year agreement
with the provincial Government of Newfoundland to commit $10
million of federal money, Canadian taxpayer money, to support a
business for the next five years in an area of relatively low
unemployment while the rest of the province has high
unemployment, the answer is no.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it seems like these are only poaching jobs, not creating
new ones.
It is disgusting that the minister would use funds from an
agency that he is responsible for to feather his own political
nest. Just like the TJF, regional development agencies are
vulnerable to political opportunism.
Believe it or not, this is the minister who is now going to be
put in charge of the TJF money transferred to ACOA.
Has pork-barrelling politics become so second nature to this
government that its members cannot even see the conflict of
interest being created here?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, could the hon. member explain why he does not apply the
terms pork-barrelling and the like to what happened in the town
of Red Deer in Alberta over the past 10 years when the current
Leader of the Opposition was an Alberta minister? At that time
$20,000 went to a limousine service; $10,000 went to a chocolate
and wedding supply store; $23,000 went to a tuxedo rental
company.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, dairy
producers are worried. Canada made a commitment to defend
supply management in its negotiations with the WTO. The Cairns
group wants the abolition of supply management. Canada is a
member of this group.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Why does he
tell us that he wants to defend supply management and the Cairns
group that he is fighting against it?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the comments that the hon. member is
making are not correct. In our initial negotiating position to
the next round of the WTO, we made it clear that we will defend
and we do defend, as was demonstrated by the challenge that the
United States put forward to supply management a couple of years
ago in which we worked with the industry to defend our domestic
marketing systems and supply management. We always have and we
always will defend our position.
1135
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, supply
management ensures a decent income for the thousands of Canadian
dairy, egg and poultry producers.
Can the government assure us that the trade agreements it plans
to sign will not threaten supply management systems?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the hon. member. She
did state that the supply management gives dairy, egg and poultry
producers a good return on their investments and risks. I agree
with her on that. That is why we we have defended it. We will
continue to defend it firmly and strongly. We have demonstrated
that very clearly in the past and will continue to do so.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like Canadians to listen to the answers to
these questions of a very serious nature to a minister.
I am accusing, through proof in a letter, a minister of the
government of attempting to force a young high tech company to
move to his riding in return for taxpayer money.
I would like to know from the minister if this is current
government practice or just one minister's attempt to abuse his
portfolio.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this money is in a federal-provincial
agreement being renegotiated with a request from the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The question here is this. Do we agree with the Canadian
Alliance to put money in areas which do not need economic
diversification, where the unemployment rate is low, or do we put
it into rural Canada where the money is needed?
We are going to fight this anti-rural Canada attitude on the
part of the official opposition.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Or, do we agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is appropriate for a
minister to force a company to relocate to his riding in return
for some money?
It is commonly said that a government that robs Peter to pay
Paul can depend on the support of Paul. I wonder if the minister
would just stand here today and tell us whether or not this
company should really have to relocate in return for some money
that it wants, or is it just the minister getting off on abusing
his own authority.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a federal-provincial cost share
agreement that is being renegotiated.
The question is, should Canadian taxpayers have to put $10
million for the next five years into an operation in a low
unemployment area while the rest of Newfoundland is suffering?
The answer is no, not while I am here.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government is trying once again with
employment insurance to give the public a few crumbs only, and
this will not work. Once again, the unemployed feel they are
being used as election fodder.
Why is the minister, who has in her hands some $32 billion in
surpluses taken from the pockets of employees and employers,
refusing to listen to those suffering the most as the result of
her insensitivity?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we believe in a
balanced approach. We believe we need to have a strong
employment insurance program to help those Canadians who, through
no fault of their own, find themselves without work. We also
believe that the best insurance is a job.
I would remind the hon. member that today's unemployment numbers
are positive again for the country and have been reduced again.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, $32 billion in surplus and $500 million for
measures is not very balanced.
In order to protect the employment insurance plan from
misappropriation by the Minister of Finance before the Minister
of Human Resources Development gets involved, an independent
fund has to be created and managed by those who pay, that is,
employers and employees.
When will the government, which does not invest a cent in
employment insurance, let the fund be managed by those paying
for it?
1140
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1996 we made significant changes to
the Employment Insurance Act. We made sure that every single
hour of work would count for the benefit of employment insurance.
We made sure that poorer families and low income families would
have an increased percentage of the benefits, to 80%. We made
sure through the diviser rule that Canadians would be attached
more directly to the workforce. We are also prepared to make
changes when changes are necessary.
Bill C-44, which is before the House, confirms our commitment to
make changes when changes are necessary.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport
spent countless hours questioning witnesses on Bill C-34, the
grain transportation bill.
The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the
Minister of Transport will recall that I predicted chaos. Well,
that chaos is here. The wheat board's tendering process is so
flawed that only a paltry 7% of the grain tendered has even been
bid on.
Why will these ministers not admit that this bill is flawed and
that the grain companies should deal directly with the railways
to get the grain moving again?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should in fact be
congratulating the government for its efforts to modernize the
grain transportation system. This is a very pro-farmer
government.
The minister has asked the parties to keep working at the
problems with the tendering process.
I want to remind the member that the government through Bill
C-34 has committed $178 million to farmers because of the revenue
cap, $175 million for rural roads on the prairies and much more.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, some farmers did not get any of that
money and the hon. member should know it.
Some 22,000 western farmers have been forced off the land and
more will be forced off the land. To make matters worse, the
government has ignored virtually every stakeholder in the
industry. It is the farmers who have to pay for this needless
delay in grain shipment.
When will this ministers and this government allow the grain
companies to deal directly with the railways so the farmers can
at least get a few precious cents in their pockets?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's
question is that he is against the wheat board. This government
clearly supports the efforts of the wheat board to support the
sales of prairie grains.
I say again that this is a very pro-farmer government. Our
attempts to modernize the grain transportation system are real.
It is up to the parties to solve the problems we are seeing right
now with the tendering process, and we expect them to do so.
* * *
[Translation]
WOMEN'S POVERTY
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everyone is
outraged at how hard poverty is hitting women because of the EI
restrictions being imposed, despite the $32 million surplus
available to the minister.
While her colleague, the Minister of Finance, is toying with the
idea of a mini-budget, will she admit that the only way to fight
poverty among women is to demand that this minister take
concrete and immediate action?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I no longer understand, because the member
for Roberval said that this was good news for young seasonal
workers in construction, who are making fairly good money.
Certain clauses have also been relaxed for women. The premium
rate has been lowered by 15 cents. This is good news and will
help with a few of the problems.
So, if they agree, why ask these questions?
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last night the Leader of the Opposition unveiled his party's
right wing platform in Kitchener. The plan backtracks on a
number of commitments that the leader of the party, formerly
known as Reform, had committed himself to only a few short months
ago.
Can the Minister of Health tell the House just what the Alliance
platform will do to our Canadian health care system?
1145
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the most important part of what was said last night is what was
left out. The reform alliance did not say that it would
surrender federal power to enforce the Canada Health Act. It did
not say that it would no longer transfer cash to the provinces.
It would give it all away in tax points.
No federal cash means no federal role and no federal role means
no national standards. No national standards means a ten tier
health care system in Canada. The reform alliance would destroy
Canadian medicare and we will not let it do that.
* * *
SPECIES AT RISK
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the government
worried for a change in light of real competition.
The species at risk act is the government's second attempt to
implement a plan to protect species and habitat. Once again it
has failed to bring all the necessary stakeholders together.
Why does the minister refuse to recognize that fair market value
compensation is essential to guaranteeing the co-operation of all
Canadians in habitat protection programs?
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government supports the
principle of full cost accounting applications to decisions taken
throughout the economy. We have already taken related action.
Sustainable development is a key consideration for all government
operations. We are working with all stakeholders to make sure
that we protect not only species at risk but habitat also.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary
secretary was reading from the right page.
First we learned that leaseholders, ranchers and farmers will
not be compensated for financial loss that results from the act.
Then the minister decided in committee that corporations will not
qualify for compensation.
As Canadians are trying to put habitat protection and protection
of species ahead, why does the minister refuse to guarantee fair
market compensation for landowners and leaseholders who have
economically crippling restrictions placed on their lands?
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has put
forward a very sound piece of legislation. We have asked for
expert input on this very topic of compensation.
I would ask the members opposite why they are not co-operating
to make sure that this important piece of legislation, important
not only to the government but to Canadians, gets into committee
in order that we may deal with it.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as all of
us know, this weekend is a time when Canadians count their
blessings and give thanks for a bountiful harvest and a full
larder. However, once again few of our farm families who produce
that bountiful harvest are celebrating because farm federal
safety nets are simply too restrictive and too skimpy to allow
them any meaningful return.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture says that $2 billion
would go a long way toward levelling the playing field with our
major competitors.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
With large and growing surpluses, why will the government not
commit $2 billion to help resolve this crisis?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has already increased
support and safety nets to farmers by 85% in the last 24 months.
The program that we put in place specifically for the 1998 and
1999 business years will deliver $1.6 billion to farmers with
assistance from our partnership with the provinces. That program
will be continuing into the year 2001.
As a federal government, we are continuing to look at many
different ways to work with the provinces and the industry in
order to assist farmers with their financial stress in all the
ways that we can.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
are being told by the government that the coming election will be
about values. I cannot imagine fundamental values that Canadians
hold more dearly and believe in more strongly than fairness and
equality. Too often what the government has done to a growing
number of Canadian farm families who desperately need a helping
hand has been to give them the back of its hand.
The government has large and growing surpluses. Why does it
persist in refusing to share some of that with our farm families?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have shared and we will continue to
share. I suggest to the hon. member that he speak to his
provincial government at home, which informed me the other day
that it did not have more money to help farmers. It did not see
that as its role even at the very same time as it was telling me
how important agriculture was to the province. I agree with the
provincial government on how important agriculture is to the
province, so it has a role to play too.
* * *
1150
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
decision on the future of Manitoba's land forces was to be made
months ago. The Minister of National Defence stood in the House
and said that the decision would be based on military operations
and not on politics.
The report is in place, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
the minister responsible for western economic diversification did
not like the report so they have commissioned their own. I ask
the Minister of National Defence, is this not political
interference and why will the minister not accept the
recommendations of his own military?
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the previous member
indicated, this weekend is Thanksgiving weekend and all members
of the House should give thanks that today, as we speak, the
minister is making an announcement concerning our reserves.
Today we have dedicated over $42 million to guarantee that our
reserves will have a strong and vital future.
We on this side of the House would like to congratulate those
courageous, committed citizens of this country who participate in
our reserves. The hon. member should know full well that we will
do everything to guarantee our reserves.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of ACOA.
Operation On-Line is a high tech agency in St. John's,
Newfoundland that is nearing the end of a current five year term
for federal funding. The minister is holding the agency and all
its employees to ransom by demanding that they move from St.
John's into his riding. He told the company “Move or I will
shut you down.”
How can the minister justify that abuse of his ministerial
power, and why is it moving into his riding?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's information is of
course incorrect. This is a federal-provincial agreement that is
cost shared between the federal and provincial governments, and
here we are with a decision to make. Do we fund, under
federal-provincial agreements, businesses in areas of relatively
low unemployment inside the overpass or do we fund outside the
overpass where there is out-migration, the unemployment rate is
high and where the town involved outside is willing to put in
$750,000 of its own municipal tax money?
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for infrastructure. I
want the municipalities of Peterborough to get their fair share
of federal infrastructure money.
Can the minister give us an update on agreements on
infrastructure that have been signed so far with the provinces,
and when will Ontario come on side?
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report
that we have signed agreements with the provinces of New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and, this morning, with Prince Edward
Island. This represents $131 million. With our partners, that is
over $390 million going into new infrastructure in Atlantic
Canada. I am also happy to report that the money will be flowing
from these projects by the new year.
This summer there were water shortages in Atlantic Canada. I am
very happy to report that these programs will be oriented to
permitting safer water conditions and a safer and healthier
environment for all Canadians including, and most importantly,
Atlantic Canadians.
* * *
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, back in 1995 the Liberal government
promised parliament and the people that its gun registration
scheme known as Bill C-68 would run a deficit of only $2.2
million. It promised us that user fees would cover the entire
cost of the program.
Now access to information shows only $17 million in user fees
have been collected, yet costs are over half a billion dollars,
over $500 million. That is a deficit of over 200 times that
projected. How will the Minister of Justice keep her promise?
1155
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we cannot look at the costs of the system without looking at the
benefits.
I will tell the hon. member some of the benefits. Over 7,701
potentially dangerous gun sales were sent for further
investigation, 921 licences were refused and 1,182 licences were
revoked. The new registry system has revoked over 20 times more
licences than the total over the last five years.
Those are the benefits. This system is working.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL FREE TRADE ZONE AT MIRABEL
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in September the government of Quebec inaugurated an
international free trade zone at Mirabel, thus following up on
the recommendations of the Tardif commission through a series of
actions to assist investors. We are still waiting to hear from
the federal government.
What stage is the federal government at with respect to the
international free trade zone at Mirabel? Will it stop dragging
its feet and finally take action?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that the project proposed is still under study by the
Minister of National Revenue. We can consider the proposals
which are on the table.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on October 15 women across the globe will march hand in
hand, side by side.
One of the issues they are fighting against is poverty and how
it affects their families. Meanwhile the government talks about
the great strides it has taken for the rights of women in Canada.
All of us in this Chamber know that poor children are a result of
poor parents.
Can the HRDC minister tell us if, with her government's proposed
changes to the EI, a woman who was ineligible for benefits last
week will be eligible today?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has shown its recognition
of the importance of our youngest citizens, our children.
Most recently we agreed with the provinces to a $2.2 billion
investment in the early years. In addition, we have increased
our investments to the national child benefit which goes directly
to low income families.
With regard to employment insurance, I would tell the hon.
member that for women the unemployment rates have come down to
the lowest point in the last 25 years. From our point of view
the best support for a family is a job.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for ACOA has just stated the new government
policy that government operations will be moved from lower
unemployment communities to higher unemployment communities.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is, which other
agencies will be moved in accordance with this policy? Will CBC
headquarters be moved out of downtown Toronto? Will downtown
Toronto lose all its agencies? Will Ottawa be de-populated?
Will the Deputy Prime Minister spell out exactly how—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a general economic
development agreement to be signed with the provincial government
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The argument is that the Tory Party is in favour of spending
money in a low unemployment area in the city of St. John's versus
an area in rural Newfoundland with high unemployment that was
caused by his government's disastrous fisheries policy that
allowed foreigners to take everything.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week the
environment minister announced the establishment of an appraisal
review panel that will implement a new process for the ecological
gifts program.
Can the minister tell the House what the benefit of that program
is for species at risk in Canada? If I might add a personal
note, at my age I find this a most appropriate question.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Budget 2000 introduced new
tax measures that allowed the number of eco-gift donations to
increase by more than two-thirds. This is good news for wildlife
and biodiversity in Canada, as well as for Canadian taxpayers.
Species at risk, like the burrowing owl and the loggerhead
shrike, have a stronger chance of recovery thanks to the 165
donations valued at in excess of $25 million.
I encourage all Canadians to consider donating ecologically
sensitive lands. These gifts are Canada's future.
* * *
1200
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of hon. members
to the presence in the gallery of my brother Speaker from
Austria, His Excellency Dr. Heinz Fischer, President of the
Austrian National Council.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today
relating to the use of nomenclature in the House. Today members
of cabinet continuously referred to members of the Canadian
Alliance as the reform alliance. I point to Standing Order 10
which clearly—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Of course, we should refer
to ourselves by not only our proper ridings but with the proper
names of our parties. I would urge all hon. members to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker on Friday, September
22, the fire alarm rang and we had to leave the House in a
hurry, just as I was about to ask a question.
At that point, Mr.
Speaker, you promised that the following Friday you would take
into account the time that was left during that oral question
period.
Last Friday, another unforeseen event took place, as everyone
knows, and the following Friday, which is today, I noticed
that for some reason you did not take into account that period of
time, since oral question period ended at noon.
I would still like to ask my question and I would like the Chair
to tell me when I will be allowed to do so.
The Speaker: Is the hon. member's question for a minister who is
now sitting in the House?
Mr. René Laurin: No, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the
Minister of National Defence, but he was not there either when
we came back that Friday.
On Friday the 22nd, when we came back into the House and gave
our unanimous consent to allow an NDP member to put his
question, the Minister of National Defence had already left.
The Speaker: When we come back next Monday, you will be allowed
to put your question. I will be here and I will make sure that
you have the opportunity to put your question. If you so wish,
you can even be the first Bloc Quebecois member to ask a
question.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I have two points of order. The first one has also to do with
the name of the party. Mr. Speaker, you made the ruling very
clearly. I would like to know whether you simply urge members to
use that name or require them to use that name.
The Speaker: We urge that more than anything. I always
refrain as much as possible from giving orders in the House.
Members of parliament are urged to act with respect toward one
another.
I know that it is not necessary in the overwhelming majority of
cases to order anyone to do anything. I am sure you will find an
improvement in the weeks and months ahead.
1205
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, my second point of order is
with respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, who used the term
meanspirited. I know this is unparliamentary because I was
called on it once.
The Speaker: There are no words which of themselves are
unparliamentary. It is the tone in which they are used and at
the time they are used. I see the hon. member has left so I need
not explain.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the government's response to 11 petitions.
* * *
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the annual
report to parliament on the administration of the acts within the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for the period from April 1,
1999 to March 31, 2000.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 10th report of the
Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of
Wednesday, March 29 in relation to Bill C-213, an act to promote
shipbuilding 1999.
The committee has considered Bill C-213 and reports the bill
without amendments.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 39th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of some standing committees.
If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in
the 39th report later this day.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-503, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act (to provide for judicial
discretion to assign a security classification of maximum to
high-risk violent offenders, to establish a Board of Management
to oversee operations of the Correctional Service of Canada and
to establish an Office of Ombudsman for Victims).
He said: Mr. Speaker, corrections is the least visible part of
our justice system. I am pleased to introduce a bill which will
change this and make Canada's corrections system more transparent
and more accountable to victims and Canadians.
The bill will permit sentencing judges to send high-risk
offenders to maximum security, create a public board with victim
representation to manage the corrections system, create the
office of a victims' ombudsman to help victims, provide victims
with new information like the rehabilitation efforts of the
offenders, and permit victims to make victims' impact statements
at parole board hearings.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-504, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (to
provide for the deduction of funeral expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this enactment would permit a tax
deduction of up to $10,000 for the taxpayer who has paid the
funeral expenses of a person who has been buried in Canada.
Taxpayers eligible for the tax deduction include the taxpayer
who has died, the legal representative of the taxpayer who has
died or any other taxpayer who has paid the funeral expenses of
the person who has died.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1210
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-505, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(recruitment of children and swarming).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce this
bill to amend the criminal code with respect to recruitment of
children and swarming.
[English]
This bill would bring about amendments to the criminal code that
would specifically enact a section of the code for prohibiting
the recruitment of children as well as a specific section that
would denunciate a code section barring swarming and attacking en
masse, in a group. These are two phenomena that have received a
great deal of attention recently. There are enactments to the
criminal code that I think would greatly enhance the law
enforcement community and the justice system's ability to deal
with these two matters.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the 39th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, on October 4 and 5, I sought
the unanimous consent of the House that Motion No. 37, the
second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official
Languages expressing a desire for Ottawa, the capital of Canada,
to be officially bilingual, be adopted without debate.
I again seek unanimous consent for this motion to be adopted
without debate.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of
the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
EPILEPSY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present another petition on behalf of people who
suffer from epilepsy. These petitioners commend Canada's
participation in the World Health Organization's global campaign
to bring epilepsy out of the shadows.
The petitioners point out that epilepsy is one of the most
common brain disorders in every country of the world. It is also
one of the most neglected. Seldom publicly discussed, epilepsy
remains surrounded by damaging myths, stigma and
misunderstandings that have no place in the new millennium. For
each person struggling to live well with epilepsy, this lack of
understanding can be more debilitating than the seizures
themselves.
These petitioners call upon parliament to help launch a national
campaign to raise public awareness of epilepsy and first aid for
seizures.
SEXUAL ABUSE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a
petition signed by a number of residents of the lower mainland of
British Columbia.
Given the problems related to childhood sexual abuse and
recognition of those who suffer from the lifelong ongoing trauma
throughout their lives from childhood sexual abuse, the
petitioners are asking parliament to declare October 7, National
Sexual Abuse Awareness Day.
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF MOX
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to table two petitions in the House.
The first is from a number of constituents in the city of
Laterrière in my riding who call upon parliament to take all
necessary steps to ensure that the public and its
representatives are consulted on the principle of importing MOX
plutonium.
1215
GASOLINE PRICING
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my second
petition bears the signatures of 460 people calling upon
parliament to take all necessary steps to recommend, as soon as
possible, concrete means for dealing with the exorbitant
increase in petroleum products and to develop affordable
alternative energies.
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a
petition on behalf of many Canadians who are very concerned about
the Liberal cutbacks to health care of $30 billion over the past
six years.
They are also unhappy with the fact that the current Liberal
budget only gives two cents to health care for every $1 in tax
cuts. Health care is in a shambles in the country, thanks to the
Liberals who are urged on by the Canadian Alliance.
The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to restore
health care funding immediately, not five years from now. They
are also asking to stop the for profit hospitals.
FUEL PRICES
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a second petition to present from Canadians in
British Columbia and other parts of the country. They are very
concerned about the lack of an action plan by the federal
government with respect to an energy defence system.
We need an energy action plan to defend our economy. The
Americans have one, and the Canadian government has refused to
defend consumers, farmers and small businesses from the price
gouging of the vertically integrated oil companies.
They are asking parliament to establish an energy price
commission which will hold the oil companies accountable for
their price increases.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 100 people calling on
the government to do everything possible to stop the monopoly of
the international oil cartels in order to bring about a
significant decrease in oil prices.
The petitioners call on the government to allocate sufficient
funding for research into alternative energy sources so that the
people of Quebec and of Canada will, in the near future, be free
of the obligation to use oil as their primary source of energy.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 84 could be made
an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 84—Mr. Paul Forseth:
For the riding of Port Moody Coquitlam—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam for the fiscal years 1996-97 to the present: (a)
what federal grants, loans, and other financial provisions were
granted; (b) in each case, what was the name of the
associated program; (c) what was the originating agency or
department; (d) what was the amount; and (e) what was
the name of the recipient?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MARINE LIABILITY ACT
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Transport)
moved that Bill S-17, an act respecting marine liability, and to
validate certain bylaws and regulations, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak at
second reading of Bill S-17. The introduction of the marine
liability act represents a monumental step in the modernization
of Canadian legislation regarding liabilities arising from
shipping activities.
Its new format and structure are setting a new standard in the
way legislation should be implemented to better facilitate the
adoption of future improvements and developments in this field.
The modernization of Canadian legislation does not end with the
introduction of this bill. It is one of our ongoing policy
objectives to ensure that the provisions of the new bill keep
pace with a rapidly developing shipping industry and to ensure
that the compensation provided by the various liability regimes
keeps pace with growing economies.
1220
I take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House
Canada's efforts on the international scene with regard to the
modernization of two important liability regimes to better
reflect the nature of modern shipping. I refer to the liability
regimes for compensation for oil pollution, cleanup and damages,
and to the liability for the carriage of goods.
On oil pollution liability, Canada is a party to the 1992
protocol to the international convention on civil liability for
oil pollution damage, 1969, and the international convention on
the establishment of an international fund for compensation for
oil pollution damage, 1971. The purpose of these conventions is
to provide adequate compensation to victims of oil pollution
catastrophes.
On December 12, 1999 such a catastrophe occurred off the coast
of France. The Malta registered tanker Erika broke in two
in the Bay of Biscay, some 60 miles off the coast of Brittany.
The bow section floated for several hours before finally sinking.
Efforts to tow the stern section out to sea failed and the stern
eventually sank approximately 10 miles from the location of the
sunken bow section.
The Erika was carrying 30,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil of
which some 14,000 tonnes were spilled at the time of the
incident. The balance of the cargo remained in the sunken wreck.
Approximately 400 kilometres of coastline were devastated and the
damage to the wildlife, fishing and aquatic industry is still
being assessed.
At a very early stage in the cleanup operations it was
recognized that the extent of damages was likely to reach the
maximum amount of compensation that the international oil
pollution fund was able to offer under its existing arrangement,
an astonishing $270 million Canadian.
The realization that the fund could prove to be inadequate to
compensate all victims of the incident prompted calls from many
of the countries that are party to the fund for a review of the
limits of available compensation.
A meeting of the contracting states was held in July of this
year. It was agreed that there was sufficient support, including
support from industry itself, for an increase in the limits of
compensation.
From the outset Canada has been active in the discussions that
led to a proposal to increase the limit to the maximum level
permitted by the provisions of the international conventions.
This proposal, to be submitted next month to the International
Maritime Organization, is co-sponsored by Canada and will see the
limit of the fund increased to approximately $405 million
Canadian. As a result of these efforts Canadians will have an
improved compensation scheme available to assist them in the
event of such a tragedy occurring in our waters.
Under the title of cargo liability I would like now to turn to
our initiative relating to the liability of shipowners for the
carriage of goods. The existence of rules that clearly establish
the rights of shippers and shipowners is critically important,
especially in an era where trade is liberalized around the globe
and where trading partners are pursuing initiatives to increase
access to international markets.
Internationally Canada has always participated in transport
related initiatives to harmonize shipping standards, rules and
regulations with other countries. The current legislation
governing the liability of the shipowner for damage to cargo
during maritime carriage is governed by the 1993 Carriage of
Goods By Water Act.
This act was first adopted in 1936 on the basis of a 1924
international convention known as the Hague rules, which were
amended in 1968 by the Visby protocol. This amendment
essentially increased the limit of liability per package and
provided for claims on the basis of gross weight of the goods as
an alternative to a per package limit.
In 1978 the United Nations adopted a new international
convention on the carriage of goods by sea, commonly known as the
Hamburg rules. These rules introduced substantial changes on the
basis of liability, burden of proof and procedures for claims.
Prior to the so-called COGWA, 1993, that is the Carriage of
Goods by Water Act, Transport Canada published a discussion paper
recommending the adoption of the Hamburg rules by Canada.
Shippers clearly preferred the adoption of the Hamburg rules and
felt that these rules were more responsive to their interests
than the Hague-Visby rules, especially in terms of the new
approach to carriers' defences and increased limits of liability.
Many ship owners, their insurers, cargo insurers and legal
experts strongly favoured the adoption of the Hague-Visby rules
because they believed the Hamburg rules would have a major impact
on shipping costs and litigation costs as the new regime would
need to be tested in the courts since previous case law would no
longer hold.
Extensive consultations with the various industry groups on
these two options have not resulted in a consensus on the
adoption of either of these two international regimes.
Eventually a compromise solution was reached with the adoption of
a staged approach to both regimes.
1225
This approach involved the immediate implementation of the
Hague-Visby rules with provisions to bring the Hamburg rules into
effect at a later date when a sufficient number of Canada's
trading partners had ratified them. The staged approach would
therefore ensure that Canadian law is always in step with that of
our trading partners.
It also resulted in the adoption of a provision in the 1993
COGWA, which requires the Minister of Transport to conduct a
periodic review of the act to determine whether the Hague-Visby
rules should be replaced by the Hamburg rules.
This approach reflected Canada's intention to accept the Hamburg
rules when it was proven that they would provide a viable basis
for new liability conditions for international trade. In the
intervening period the government committed itself to promote the
Hamburg rules and to pursue with Canada's trading partners the
possibility of a co-ordinated action that would lead to wider
acceptance of the Hamburg rules at the international level.
As I mentioned previously, to fulfil the legal requirement
contained in the Carriage of Goods by Water Act, 1993, and as
part of the first review period, the Minister of Transport
submitted a report to parliament in December of last year in
which he concluded: first, the Hague-Visby rules should be
retained in the current Carriage of Goods by Water Act until the
next review period ending January 1, 2005 and, second, Transport
Canada should continue to make efforts in consultation with
industry and in co-operation with like-minded countries with a
view to developing practical options for a new international
regime of liability for the carriage of goods by sea, which would
achieve a greater uniformity than the Hague-Visby rules.
The outcome of this review was driven by the developments in
international law on cargo liability, the stagnant position of
the Hamburg rules internationally and their minimal impact on
Canadian seaborne trade.
Progress to achieve uniformity of international law suffered
considerable setback in recent years resulting from the
proliferation of regional or unilateral approaches to the
modernization of domestic laws which have attempted to address
real or perceived difficulties in the international conventions.
Divergent rules on cargo liability now apply in many countries.
There is a danger that other countries might pursue a similar
path of unilateral solutions.
A concrete example of such independent action is the proposed
amendments to the U.S. carriage of goods by sea act, 2000. The
U.S. act, if adopted in its current form, would add to the
proliferation of divergent regimes thus impeding international
uniformity.
Canada and a number of countries and industry organizations have
raised concerns about the significant departure of the proposed
U.S. legislation from prevailing international law. The
uniformity of international law remains a key objective of
Canadian policy. The outlook for achieving this objective is
improving with the ongoing interest of several international
organizations on this subject.
Many of these organizations agreed to undertake important work
in a consistent manner by avoiding duplication of efforts and by
consulting with other international bodies interested in cargo
liability such as the International Maritime Organization, the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law, and Comité Maritime
International.
Currently the subject of cargo liability is on the agenda of the
OECD maritime transport committee. The committee recognized that
there was sufficient interest internationally to consider
measures that would improve the current situation.
UNCITRAL and CMI have undertaken to review current practices and
laws on the international carriage of goods by sea to determine
why countries cannot reach consensus in this area. As part of
this commitment UNCITRAL and CMI have established a working group
to gather information, ideas and opinions as to the problems that
arose in practice and possible solutions to those problems.
Canada will continue to pursue, in co-operation with trading
partners, the objective of a uniform international law on
carriage of goods by water and will assist UNCITRAL and CMI in
their current efforts. Canada will support any new initiative at
the international level that would have a realistic chance at
success in achieving this objective. These are just two of the
things that Canada wishes to do when it comes to the matter of
proving the international liability regimes for the carriage of
goods around the world.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, today we are addressing Bill S-17, the marine liability
act. The title of Bill S-17 means that the bill originated in
the other place, namely the Senate. My party has been advocating
for quite some time the idea of an equal, effective and elected
Senate. I would like to touch on some of the ideas with regard
to whether an unelected place should be putting forward
legislation.
1230
Back in 1990 in my home town of Calgary, the Prime Minister in
his leadership race was advocating that the Senate be elected. He
also went on to make promises to that effect in 1993. If he had
upheld his original promise to have an elected Senate when he
became Prime Minister in 1993, most of the people in that place
at this time would probably be elected. However, he did not live
up to his promise to the Liberal delegates in 1990 and he did not
live up to his promise to the Canadian public in 1993 that the
other place would be elected.
As a result we have a circumstance whereby today legislation has
been put forward from that place, from an unelected body that is
unaccountable to the taxpayers in this land. I know because we
have tried to draw before us in committee people who should by
all rights be accountable to the Canadian taxpayers, who should
be accountable even to the Prime Minister after he has appointed
them, and that would be at least something, or at least
accountable to this body, the House of Commons, that is duly
elected.
However, by refusing to appear, either at the request of the
Prime Minister, this place or the Canadian taxpayers on the
matter of their own budget, the whole idea of money and of
spending taxpayers' dollars, it has proven that there is no
accountability by an unelected body, namely the Senate, to the
taxpayers.
I could go on for a very long time about the problems I have
with an unelected Senate and therefore I think a less effective
Senate. If it was elected, it would take up the battle cries
like it did during the GST, whereby the GST dropped from 11% down
to 9% and finally to 7% because of what those in the Senate did.
Once again that is one other of the broken promises. I remember
in 1993 when the Liberals went about this country talking about
killing, abolishing and scrapping the GST and they did not do
that. They broke their faith with the people.
The person who used to be the deputy prime minister, the member
for Hamilton East, knows all too well that they broke their faith
with the Canadian people on the matter of the GST.
Somebody who was booted out of the party and sits now over on
this side, the member for York South—Weston, knows all too well
that the Liberals broke its faith with the people on its promise
to kill, scrap and abolish the GST.
I will now go on to talk about some of the other things in the
marine liability act that will have an impact on people. The
marine liability act will consolidate various pieces of
legislation and concerns into a single piece of legislation. Of
course, that fits generally with the tone of the government to go
ahead and centralize a lot of different things and to hone its
power. That is a typical theme in this place for this Liberal
administration.
The bill also touches on this whole idea of the other
liabilities, the problems associated with it and the lack of
priorities coming out of the government. The government is
dealing with this liability act, which will have an impact on our
transportation system, when Canada's competitiveness in
transportation is slipping. This is a travesty.
Right now we have a serious problem with taxes in this country,
and especially in realm of transportation. We collect about $4.7
billion in fuel taxes. That is a lot of money in terms of fuel
taxes. If we collect $4.7 billion in taxes, where does that
money go? Does it all go back into transportation? That would
make perfectly good sense, would it not? That money could used
to improve a lot of highways and port facilities.
1235
Although that money could do untold good for all sorts of
transportation, and although we have the highest prices for
gasoline we have ever seen, what is happening? Of the $4.7
billion that came in by way of gas taxes for the fiscal year
1998-99, which will probably be higher this year, only a paltry
4.1%, or $194 million, went back to provincial transfers for road
and highway development. That means that for every dollar the
average person pays in gasoline taxes, 96 cents goes toward
things other than transportation.
The obvious question that comes up when we are talking about
liabilities, which the government is, and priorities in
transportation is, what other types of things does that 96% go
into? It goes into the general revenue fund.
Let us look at some of the other priorities. Let us look at the
serious liabilities that the government lies out for the
taxpayer. That 96% of money that people pay goes into dumb
blonde joke books. Frankly I do not know what that has to do
with transportation but the fact is that transportation tax
dollars and fuel taxes are going into those things.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am not sure how accurate the member's comments are, but
I wish he would speak about the bill. It is a question of the
relevance of his comments.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member has a
good point of order. I am sure the hon. member is just about to
come back on subject.
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, there is no subject more
pressing than this whole idea of the liability act, which
originated in the Senate.
I will go on to talk about some of the things that the
government is once again doing. It is allowing the supreme court
to call the shots. It is reacting to supreme court decisions
rather than allowing the supremacy of parliament to rule the day.
I could also talk about the violation of provincial
jurisdiction. I could go through chapter and verse if the hon.
member across the way wants me to, but I want to address the
ideas that are involved in this. One of the ideas is that 96% of
the money that is raised through fuel taxes for transportation,
which this bill deals with, is going to other things. What is it
going to? I alluded to dumb blonde joke books. If that is not a
liability in terms of the use of taxpayer dollars and fuel taxes,
I do not know what is.
Why would the general revenues raised through transportation
taxes go toward funding pornography? What sense does it make to
take transportation tax dollars and fund pornography films like
Bubbles Galore and various other films? That is exactly
what is happening. How is pornography a higher priority than
transportation, building good roads and building better ports?
This does not make any sense.
However, it gets worse. That 96% of dollars, that $4.5 billion,
a sum larger than almost any individual can possibly fathom—the
biggest purchase most people make in a lifetime is a home—is
also going to fund bleach and syringes so that convicts can shoot
up their drugs while in jail. That is an abuse of taxpayer
dollars.
1240
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Madam Speaker, I rise again on a
point of order. We would really like to hear what the Alliance
Party has to say on Bill S-17. If the hon. member does not have
any comments, maybe one of the other members here might be
willing to do so, instead of putting us through his
pre-election—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I remind the hon.
member again to try as much as possible to keep his comments
pertinent to the bill now before the House.
Mr. Rob Anders: No doubt about it, Madam Speaker, that
when I look at Bill S-17 it refers to fatal accidents, liability,
compensation and damages. It refers to all those things. That
member across the way may not like our reference to liability,
compensation, fatal accidents and damage, but I will tell him a
bit about compensation, damage, liability and fatal accidents.
I will tell the House what is a fatal accident. A fatal
accident is that we have $4.5 billion of transportation tax money
that is going to fund court challenges. Can we believe it? We
have groups out there that are using taxpayer dollars to sue our
government to get more taxpayer dollars.
That is what happens when money is taken from taxpayers on fuel
and it is put into general revenue. It is a whole lack of
priorities on transportation. The government takes that money
and does not put it into roads, into ports, and into things that
obviously have tangible benefits. Instead it sticks it into
other things. I do not know how it can possibly argue its
priorities.
We get prison golf courses. The government is using $4.5
billion taken in fuel taxes under the auspices of transportation
on prison golf courses so that prisoners can play on the green.
How does it justify that? How is that a priority?
It gets worse. The $4.5 billion are also used to pay for early
parole, appeals. Prisoners use those taxpayer dollars to appeal
for early parole. It is not bad enough that they get out when
they do with light sentences and slaps on the wrist, but that
$4.5 billion pay for early parole appeals.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have no idea what the member is talking about. This
has nothing to do with the bill. I would ask the member either
to speak to the subject or to leave the House. It is insulting
to the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member must
realize that there is a bill before the House that is important
to his party and to other parties. I ask him to please try to
keep to the bill.
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, I am speaking directly to
that bill. I will talk about how it violates provincial
jurisdiction and some of the other things the government does to
violate the jurisdiction of the provinces.
My goodness, on transportation Alberta can speak only too well
with regard to the national energy program which the government
brought forward and the millions and billions of dollars it
stripped out of the province of Alberta to cripple an industry
that was crucial to transportation. I could go on. There is no
problem if they want me to talk about transportation fallacies
and what the government has done to help cripple transportation.
I will do that gladly because I think the people need to hear it.
The money raised through transportation taxes funds things like
ACOA vote buying. We heard questions in the House of Commons
today on the very issue of a minister threatening and even taking
money and pushing businesses into his riding. That is clear
political manipulation. That is exactly what the bill is all
about and that is exactly what we should not allow.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Madam Speaker, I rise once again on
a point of order on the remarks of the member opposite who
refuses to deal with Bill S-17. I thought the Alliance Party had
come to parliament with the view that it would bring, in its
mind, some civility and decorum.
We have an example here of the exact opposite. The House is here
to do a particular bit of business. I wish he would relinquish
his time to other members who might wish to speak to Bill S-17.
1245
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not know how to
convince the hon. member to please speak to the bill before the
House. Obviously members of other parties all seem to agree that
perhaps we are going a bit too far from the subject.
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, let us address the
subject. This bill is attempting to update things since the
1950s and in the government's own kind of Liberal way.
Let us look at some of the things that have changed indeed since
the 1950s in its own kind of Liberal way. Indeed pork barrelling
existed before the 1950s and pork barrelling exists after the
1950s. It is still part and parcel, is it not?
We are talking today about changing the marine law. While we
are at it, let us look at some of the other changes that are
required in law and some of the other laws that the government is
attempting to change.
The gun registry was originally supposed to cost only $2.2
million. Instead it is going to be costing over $500 million,
nearly half a billion dollars. Where is the government getting
that money from? It is getting it from transportation fuel
taxes. It is taking it from the people who fill up at the pumps
every single day in this country. The government is taking the
people for $4.5 billion and using it to spend on things that will
not keep criminals away from firearms but instead it will punish
law abiding citizens.
Shame on the government. That is what transportation fuel
taxes—
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I stayed here this afternoon to debate Bill S-17. I
implore you to rule the member out of order. He is now talking
about gun registration which has nothing whatsoever to do with
this bill. The member is abusing the rules of the House. He
should be called for that and should be told to shut up, leave
the House or stick to the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do believe that the
whole question of relevancy is a very important one in the House.
I therefore urge the member to please debate Bill S-17.
Mr. Rob Anders: Indeed, Madam Speaker, and now I am going
to start talking about some of the other bills which have been
passed with regard to transportation in other countries as they
relate to this bill.
In 1998 the United States passed the Transportation Equity Act.
It wanted to modernize its act to bring it to the 21st century,
which is something that the government says it is trying to do
with this bill. That bill was investing $217.9 billion over six
years into infrastructure, a large portion of which will go into
roads connecting its borders to Canada and Mexico. The bill
would legislatively guarantee that a minimum of 90.5% of federal
fuel tax receipts from each state are returned to each state.
If we only had that type of vision and commitment on that side
of the House with regard to transportation taxes, where the
government would be willing commit even 50% of the money it
raises in transportation taxes and put it toward transportation.
In the United States 90% of the money raised in transportation
taxes goes toward those states to help out in transportation.
Shame on this government.
I will talk about another issue with regard to transportation.
That is the revenue collected by the federal government for
aviation fuel which goes into general revenues. It is bad enough
that the government is taking $4.5 billion in transportation fuel
taxes from taxpayers, which is more than what it puts into
transportation.
We not only have people who drive cars, we also have planes.
The revenue collected by the federal government for aviation fuel
also goes into general revenues. It does not go toward improving
our airports. It is only a pittance that is returned to the
airports through the capital assistance programs.
1250
That is just another example of the billions of dollars the
government collects from various industries that are our base
economy. Instead the money goes toward other things that the
government thinks are more important.
While we are talking about transportation and fuel taxes, I want
to talk about a tax on a tax, where the government collects GST
on top of fuel excise taxes. That is supposed to be out of the
ballpark. It is absolutely wrong to place a tax upon a tax but
that is exactly what the government has done.
It promised in 1993 that it would overhaul it and get rid of the
tax on tax. It is not bad enough that it has taken billions of
dollars out of transportation and fuel taxes and has not spent
those dollars on transportation. It then goes ahead and takes
another tax, the GST, and heaps it on top of that. As a result,
it becomes even worse. It piles money hand over fist into the
general revenue fund to use on things other than transportation.
What does the government use it on? It uses it to buy goodies.
Where does it buy those goodies? It buys some of those goodies
in the Prime Minister's riding. Some of the transportation fuel
taxes are going into the Prime Minister's riding, They are not
going into roads, ports, airports, improving the integrity of our
roads, enhance traveller safety or economic viability but instead
to buy votes.
When we address issues of transportation, like Bill S-17 which
originated in the the Senate, it is because we want to improve
transportation. It might be argued that the government might be
doing something with regard to transportation in the prairies
because the farmers are having problems transporting their grain.
However, rather than allow the farmers some leeway, what does it
do, it puts them in shackles. We are paying.
For the average folks back home who are watching, when they buy
gas at the pumps, they pay tax on that gas which goes to the
federal government. Some of that tax money is being used to put
farmers in shackles because they want to sell their grain outside
the wheat board. Shame on the government. That money could have
gone to transportation. It could have been a dedicated fuel tax
but it is not. Shame on them.
I could go on with all sorts of other things that the government
has been wasting and squandering committed fuels taxes on but it
basically boils down to this. We have a government that is
elitist, out of touch and that is tax and spend. That is exactly
what is going on. When the government takes in over $4.7 billion
in dedicated fuel taxes and spends over $4.5 billion or 96% of
that on things other than transportation, we know that is out of
touch. We know it is top-down. We do not doubt for a second
that it is taxing 100% and spending 96% on other things. If that
is not tax and spend I do not know what is. Shame on it for
doing that type of thing, especially considering it made all
those election promises about taxes in 1993 and it has indeed
raised them. It is a shame.
Let us look at some of the things that other countries are doing
to improve their situations in transportation, things that Canada
should be looking at. Canada should be looking to improve its
situation on trade barriers but instead we have trade barriers
that exist between provinces. One of the trade barriers that we
have to deal with is between us and our major trading, the United
States. Our tax levels are so much higher than our American
counterparts that we are driving businesses south. Even today in
question period we had a minister who was asked about trying to
drive a business around his riding so that he could benefit from
jobs there. It is a pretty clear case of pork barrelling.
Instead, the government could be focusing its attention on some
of the blatant tax problems and the lack of fairness that exists.
It could focus on keeping businesses, which hire employees,
provide jobs and tax revenue, in Canada rather than have them
leave and go elsewhere.
1255
We have countries like Iceland, Australia, the United States,
and the list goes on, that have taxes far lower than ours.
Instead of addressing the tax levels, trying to lower taxes and
dedicating fuel taxes, we have a whole liability act coming
forward that will hamper our competitiveness because there is a
total lack of priorities.
If the government was focused on the idea of taxes, on the idea
of cutting taxes and on dedicating fuel taxes, then we would have
a spitting chance of being able to do better in terms of
competitiveness. Instead it helps to drive jobs out of the
country.
We know we have a brain drain going on. Members do not want to
admit it over there but their lack of priorities have helped to
exacerbate that problem and make it worse. Friends of mine are
going to the United States and other countries around the world
to find work because they cannot it here or because the tax
levels are too high. It drives them and their families out of
the country.
I could go on with regard to Bill S-17 but I will wrap it up
with this. Bill S-17, the marine liability act, centralizes a
lot of pieces of legislation. It fits with the whole idea of a
centralized, authoritarian, top-down structure that the
government seems to like so much. On top of that, it is falling
in line with what the supreme court wants. Once again the
government is stepping on the toes of provincial jurisdictions.
Once again it is failing to address the real issue of
competitiveness, which is the true liability, and which is its
record on taxes.
The fact is that 96% of the money raised from fuel taxes should
be going to transportation and it is not. It is going to a lot
of other things. It is going for vote buying for the upcoming
election.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I must tell you how flabbergasted I am by your
exceedingly broad understanding and very considerable tolerance
in connection with the rule on the relevance of speeches in
force here in the House. With all due respect, I would hope
that it is tolerance and not a matter of looking the other way.
I am weighing my words. I do not know whether the ability to
discuss matters of questionable relevance to the main subject
should be seen as a precedent in this House.
I would be tempted to start off with a long diatribe to the
effect that I could blame the government, but I will come
quickly to the content of this bill on the implementation of
this international treaty. I simply want to say that I too
deplore the government's decision to introduce this bill in the
other House. It is called Bill S-17 because it was introduced in
the Senate, the other House.
I think that the 301 members of this House would have done a
worthy job, and the government House leader could have easily
introduced this bill in the House of Commons, especially since
the legislative calendar is rather empty in this pre-election
period.
That said, clause 107 of part 7 of Bill S-17 confirms the
application of a tariff for those governed by the Laurentian
pilotage authority.
I want to take this opportunity to tell the House that the Bloc
Quebecois remains aware and concerned and wants to pay tribute
to the work done by the marine pilots, especially those in the
Lower St. Lawrence and central Quebec. The St. Lawrence River
is a complex waterway.
1300
These pilots have been battling for more than 30 years now for
the survival of their profession. We know that the shipowners'
lobby in Canada is a very powerful one. Why does this lobby
have so much power over the government? One need only to look
at the campaign contributions by the major shipping companies to
understand very clearly why this lobby is so influential and why
it has the government's ear so readily.
A preliminary remark on this bill is that it implements in
clause 107 application of a Laurentian pilotage charge. I must
also, because their annual meeting ended this week, greet the
members of the Canadian Marine Pilots' Association, whose
president is also the head of the International Maritime
Pilots' Association. This is the first time that a Canadian,
and a francophone Quebecer to boot, has been the president of
the international association. He is Michel Pouliot, a resident
of Saint-Jean, Île-d'Orléans. As I said, the Canadian Marine
Pilots' Association held its annual meeting this week.
We know that implementation of an international treaty is an
important matter. It is one that involves us all because
treaties are becoming increasingly important instruments in
international life. Their numbers are multiplying.
Hundreds of treaties are concluded every year, and are ratified
by Canada and other countries. First and foremost, an
international treaty is a legal instrument that has been
negotiated. Negotiations may involve public servants or
ambassadors, heads of state, or ministers representing heads of
state. There can also be negotiations with international
organizations. Often these international organizations are the
forum in which such negotiations take place.
For example, the framework of the United Nations organization
often serves as a forum or organizes the holding of conferences
at which treaties are debated and agreed to.
Depending on the constitutional law of the country, treaties
sometimes require action by parliament to permit their
acceptance by the country, so that the country can agree to be
bound by the treaty. Practices may differ significantly from one
country to the next. Here in Canada, a government can conclude a
treaty and sign it after it has been adopted. It can even ratify
it without parliament's prior approval or agreement that the
country will be bound under the international treaty.
There are countries, however, that involve their parliament and
can neither sign nor ratify—in most cases it is ratification—a
treaty without the prior approval of parliament and the holding
of a debate to give parliamentarians an opportunity to consider
the text of the treaty and its provisions before the government
commits internationally.
In France, for example, parliament must adopt an act approving
any treaty before the French authorities can ratify it.
In parliamentary systems such as ours, but also that of other
countries, there is a real lack of democracy in that
parliamentarians are asked to adopt laws whose content is
largely determined by the content of treaties negotiated by the
governments, even though their parliaments were not involved in
the discussions on that content.
I want to make this clear. Our role as an assembly of
parliamentarians is to adopt laws. Canada signs treaties in
other places and we, duly and democratically elected
parliamentarians, are not called upon to review or examine the
content of the treaty before its ratification.
However, we are called upon to pass enacting legislation. This
is why I was saying earlier that Canada is suffering from a real
democratic deficit.
1305
My colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who is
listening to me carefully at the moment, introduced Bill C-214.
Unfortunately, this bill was defeated in the House in the spring
of this year by the Liberals.
Bill C-214, introduced by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry,
provided for the House of Commons to be involved in the process
for concluding treaties by giving a treaty prior approval and
thereby authorizing the government to ratify a treaty after the
House had examined the content of it.
This provision is interesting because, in a democracy, in our
British parliamentary system, the party electing the most
members forms the government.
This is recognized as a prerogative of the government. It is
also recognized that, even if these treaties are submitted to
the House for its consideration before their passage, approval
of them rests ultimately with the government.
What about valid and often non-partisan suggestions The
government could recognize this. My colleague, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, recognizes
that we in the Bloc Quebecois and probably other opposition MPs
have made valid contributions to the debate in the past.
In the past we have succeeded in convincing members of the
Liberal majority of the merits of what we were saying and
bringing about amendments. Will the government admit that it
does not have a monopoly on intelligence? Will the government
admit that its way is not the only way? Will the government
admit that democratically elected members from both sides of the
House can make an interesting contribution to the debate?
I will just give one example, from my riding. I had introduced
Bill C-205—I hope that no one is going to raise the issue of
relevance, because I do not want this to backfire on me and the
tables to be turned—I just want to remind the House that I had
introduced a bill to allow mechanics to deduct the cost of their
tools. There are mechanics, automobile technicians and garages
in all 301 of Canada's ridings.
They are everywhere.
I set out on a pilgrimage to convince members of all parties,
and was so successful that, despite the reluctance of the
Minister of Finance, who was opposed to my bill, the result of
the vote at second reading was 218 in favour, i.e. the vast
majority, and 11 Liberal members against.
When someone comes up with something that makes sense, something
that transcends party lines, I assume that we are all operating
on good faith here.
Of course, we all have our convictions. I ask the hon. member
to respect me, with my strengths and weaknesses, but also with
my convictions. I am not about to change allegiance, the Holy
Spirit is not about to descend upon me and turn me into a
federalist overnight, because my convictions are too strong.
Some colleagues here—the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead is
one—are convinced, for reasons of political opportunism, that
their chances of being re-elected are better with the Liberals.
Anyway, democracy will have its say and the voters of
Compton—Stanstead will realize that. I am sure that when the
next election comes, they will re-elect a member of parliament
like Gaston Leroux of the Bloc Quebecois to represent them.
1310
I have to say that federal could very readily accommodate
expansion of the provinces' ability to enter into treaties.
This could involve Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia.
Inspiration could even be taken from what is done in Belgium in
connection with formulas for the ratification of treaties by
parliaments.
This is a partial explanation of why my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois, and many Quebecers, want sovereignty, which will give
them jurisdiction over their own treaties and will involve their
parliament, that is the national assembly, in their
implementation. The national assembly will be the one to
approve treaties before they become law.
In conclusion, I wanted, through my very brief comments, to say
that the Bloc Quebecois will support this bill at second
reading. We will not systematically oppose it. However, we would
like the government to take into account what I mentioned
earlier regarding the implementation of international treaties,
to take into account the situation that I illustrated to correct
operational problems that have been going on for too many years.
We will therefore support Bill S-17.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of the New
Democratic Party to speak to Bill S-17.
I have been listening to the debate and I must say I was very
taken aback by the very outrageous comments of the member for
Calgary West. His comments on the bill were as bizarre and
outrageous as his assault on bilingualism and the comments he
made about whether or not new Canadians have a right to vote in
nomination meetings.
We have to question what the member is debating. I wonder if the
member for Calgary West has talked to the Alliance member from
Surrey Central who has lived in Canada for maybe three years and
is now an MP. Today's debate is about Bill S-17. The comments
of the member for Calgary West were out of order and had nothing
to do with it.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
do not believe the member for Calgary West has opened his mouth
today in the House. I think the member has the wrong riding.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that is
not a point of order.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I believe the member for
Calgary West was in the House earlier. I may have the wrong
riding, but I believe it was the member for Calgary West.
Bill S-17 is probably not the most high profile piece of
legislation before the House. It certainly is not the most
glamorous. Probably very little attention is being paid to it.
Nevertheless the marine liability act is an important piece of
legislation. Members of the New Democratic Party have some
concerns at this point in the debate but will be supporting the
legislation.
Marine legislation is very fragmented. It now falls within a
number of different acts over many years. Many of the acts are
outdated. They are certainly not in line with current processes
and international law or the kind of legislation enjoyed by other
countries. It is very important that we are debating marine
legislation today.
My riding of Vancouver East contains a very large chunk of the
port of Vancouver. As someone coming from the west coast, marine
legislation is something that I recognize is of great importance.
Members in my caucus, including the member for Halifax West, the
member for Dartmouth and all other members from Nova Scotia, have
placed a great amount of emphasis on the need for marine
legislation, particularly in terms of creating a shipbuilding
capacity in Canada.
We have had a long and very rich tradition in Canada of a marine
industry, of building ships, of creating jobs.
1315
I want to say for myself from the west coast and my colleagues
from the east coast that this is something we think is very key
to who we are as Canadians, that is, to improve upon our capacity
to produce economic wealth, prosperity and benefits from our
shipbuilding industry.
The legislation before us today, although it does not deal
specifically with a need for shipbuilding, does cover some
important areas that need to be dealt with.
Bill S-17 seeks to unify under this piece of legislation the
various bits and pieces that have been fragmented over the years.
It attempts to modernize these laws and to keep Canada in line
with international conventions. This is something we certainly
support. It is not only generating new legislation. It is
making sure that the legislation already in place is relevant and
up to date and that it deals with the concerns we have today.
Bill S-17, as I have said, covers many areas that are already
enshrined in law. These include, for example, the limitation of
liability for maritime claims, the liability and compensation for
pollution and the liability for carriage of goods by water. These
laws are generally now re-enacted in this bill with some minor
changes to incorporate international conventions and supreme
court decisions.
There are other aspects of the bill that will also be clarified
and these are certainly things that have been outstanding and
needed attention. We are very glad to see that they have been
addressed in this bill. They have to deal with personal injuries
and fatalities.
There is no question that the experience and the evidence has
shown that at the present time under the existing legislation,
which is now very updated, there is a lot of confusion that can
arise because there is a very ambiguous and blurred line between
federal and provincial legislation and responsibilities. This
has obviously caused a lot of problems. The area of
federal-provincial jurisdiction is something that we struggle
with in this country. It is something that we need to address
through legislation. It is positive to note that this bill will
end what has been a confusing circumstance in terms of federal
and provincial responsibilities.
If the bill is passed, clear outlines will be set regarding the
relatives of those who die as a result of marine accidents in
terms of the claims they can make and to whom. For everyone in
the House, just on the basis of common decency and respecting
what happens to people when they have lost someone close to them,
a member of their family, in some sort of marine accident, to
have a procedure that is efficient, humane, respectful and
understandable is something that is very important.
We are very pleased to see that this now has been included in
the legislation and that it will help people who are faced with
these kinds of tragedies and accidents. God knows we have all
had experiences of having to deal with a bureaucracy after
someone has had a serious accident or has died. We know what it
is like to have to go through the paperwork and make the claims.
It can be a very difficult thing to do when you are in a grieving
process.
The fact that this legislation will bring some clarity to the
matter is an improvement. It hopefully will help those family
members who are dealing with a very difficult circumstance as a
result of someone who has died or who may have been in an
accident.
Another important aspect of the bill and, in fact, probably one
of the more critical things, which may not have gotten a lot of
attention, is that Bill S-17 will also prohibit shipowners from
contracting out liability for loss of life or personal injury.
The current practice, one used for many years, is that within
Canada it is very common for shipowners to insert a clause into
contracts of carriage that removes the shipowner's liability.
What does that mean? What has been the impact of that?
1320
It reminds me very much of the situation we faced with the
Westray mine disaster, an example of corporate responsibility
that was completely without consequences because there was not
any clear legislation to say that individual corporate executives
and the corporation itself are liable for their negligence and
for the people they put at risk. As members of the House know,
members of the New Democratic Party have been a very powerful
force, along with members from other parties, in bringing forward
legislation to say that corporate executives and corporations
must be held criminally responsible for any negligence or any
criminal act.
This particular feature in Bill S-17 addresses this same kind of
principle. It clearly talks about the kind of contracting out
that took place in the past. Let us imagine trying to contract
out one's liability, saying “It is not really mine as a
shipowner. I will pass the buck to someone else. I will pass on
the responsibility to someone else”. Again, the fact that the
bill will remove that kind of situation is an improvement.
In this day and age we are in an environment that is
increasingly dominated by multinational corporations, by huge
organizations that are in some instances nameless and faceless.
The sense of corporate responsibility and the sense of
accountability for people who are trying to deal with the system
are sometimes very far removed. In this respect this one
particular clause in the bill is a move in the right direction in
saying that there must be corporate social responsibility, that
the idea of hiding oneself behind a third party will not fly any
more.
These exemptions, for example, are already null and void in the
United States, France and Great Britain. There is no question
that we should not be left behind on this issue. Canada must act
on this matter now because we do not know when a disaster may
occur. We have to be prepared. We have to make sure that
legislation is in place that clearly protects victims and
families of marine accidents and clearly shows the lines of
responsibility in terms of where wrongdoing has taken place.
I have spoken on aspects of the bill that we support. We think
there are improvements, but it is only fair to say that we also
have concerns. It is appropriate to lay those on the table and
to be clear that we also have some questions about the bill. As
the bill proceeds through the House, we would like to see some
answers.
There is one clause that certainly does concern us. After some
research and some questioning of Transport Canada bureaucrats by
our caucus, we have not really found any of the answers we are
looking for. We are very concerned with the fact that the bill
would prevail over the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act if
there were any inconsistencies or conflicts between the two.
Whilst we are willing to support the bill at second reading, I
want to say that members of the New Democratic Party and our
critic in this area, the member for Churchill, want further
answers in committee. We want to know how the bill might affect
important environmental legislation and we want to know what the
various scenarios and possibilities are. We want to be assured
that the bill will not override very important environmental
protection in other legislation that exists.
In conclusion, members of the New Democratic Party feel
generally positive about the bill. We think it is an improvement
over what we have now. It will be a piece of legislation that
captures together the bits and pieces and the patchwork of
existing provisions. It will modernize the provisions for
protection around liability. It will clearly outline better
corporate responsibility, which we think is important, and it
will give better protection to those who travel by marine vessels
or who are involved with them.
1325
We therefore support the bill in principle but with the caveat
that if the government is concealing some answers in terms of the
concerns we have about other environmental and protection
legislation, then of course we will look at the bill again and
not be so accepting. However, at this point we support it in
principle.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rose on a point of order
before before to correct the member on the name of the riding. I
was wrong and I apologize. She was in fact correct. I am sorry.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise in debate on the
marine liability act.
In my case, I come from a province which is virtually surrounded
by water, the province of Nova Scotia. We often think that as a
country that is itself almost surrounded by water and certainly
has a lot of inland waterways as well as the oceans, we are past
due on legislation with respect to marine transportation, marine
liability and all marine issues, including environmental issues,
shipbuilding policies, and even the question about fuel taxes for
shipping.
It seems that the legislation we have is past due and is behind
that of many other countries that are as involved with marine
issues as Canada. In fact, the bill is just responding to our
commitment under the Athens convention of 1974 to meet
international standards on liability for marine accidents and
also to the updated 1990 protocol. It is certainly long past
due, especially for a country such as ours that is so involved
with marine aspects.
In my own case it is really obvious that this is becoming more
and more important because of the increasing economic activity on
our waters, even the increase in the use of ferries from our
different provinces and islands, not only in regard to the volume
and numbers of ferries but also now that we are getting into high
speed ferries and that sort of new technology, which creates
problems in itself. It also creates a concern about liability
for marine issues.
Tourism is becoming a big issue on the waters as well. Some of
our smaller fishing villages along our coastlines have seen their
fish stocks decline and the fishing industry decline along with
that. They have now turned to tourism, which includes tour
boats, whale watching ventures and things like that. All these
ventures currently are not well protected for marine liability as
far as our legislation goes.
People who use these types of boats for both the carriage of
people and the carriage of goods and services are not well
protected. The liability is very confusing. Shipowners and boat
owners can include exemptions to their liability on tickets.
Whether they are effectual or not and whether they are actual or
not is open to question. There is no clarification. The bill
clarifies that and we support that part of it.
A part of our economy that is exploding on both the east and
west coasts is certainly cruise ships. Up until now there has
been confusion on liability in the event that there is a serious
accident involving death or injury. The bill will address that
issue and that is long past due.
Even ecotourism in my own area is becoming more and more viable
as the demand increases and tourists from all over the world come
to eastern Canada to see different aspects of our ocean life:
whales, porpoises, seals, bird life, and recently even a small
island in the Bay of Fundy near my riding called Ile Haute that
we are hoping the Minister of the Environment will designate as a
wilderness preserve. He has indicated a strong interest in doing
that. If he does, it will create a whole new tourism industry in
my riding. It will involve boats carrying passengers to see this
incredible island in the Bay of Fundy.
It is extremely important that the issue is dealt with. There
are many aspects of the bill that we support but we do not
understand why there has been a delay in getting the bill to this
point. We go back to several aspects of other bills in the last
parliament, such as Bill C-59, the carriage of passengers by
water act, which was allowed to die on the order paper in April
1997.
The same terms of reference in that bill are in the new bill.
This is three years later and ironically we are perhaps at the
same stage now where this bill may die on the order paper if an
election is called, as is speculated in the next few weeks.
1330
In the last parliament another bill, Bill C-73, an act to amend
the Canada Shipping Act, died on the order paper. It had the
same terms and conditions as we have in this one. It died
because of an early election in 1997. Here we are three and a
half years later dealing with exactly the same words, exactly the
same bill, and maybe facing another election so that it may die
on the order paper again.
When we form the government next time we will bring it in and we
will put it through. We will not allow any more delays, any more
inappropriate stalls for this bill, because it is very important.
There are aspects of the bill we do not support but we do
support most of them. We support the bill in principle. It is
long overdue. As I said before, it basically lines us up with
the international convention adopted in 1974 in Athens and the
protocol. We need a Canada marine law and this helps us in that
regard.
Some of the aspects we like is that it confirms that claims for
wrongful death and injury in the maritime domain may be made
against persons as well as ships under the bill, thus enabling
relatives of deceased and injured persons to claim for loss of
care, guidance and companionship.
It also modernizes the language of the legislation to make it
clearer and allows people to proceed through courts a lot quicker
in the case of litigation.
Another part we support is the fact that it incorporates word
for word into the new marine liability act the Hague rules
statute under the Carriage of Goods by Water Act, which again
should have been included a long time.
It establishes the basis for amounts of liability. There are
different acts that deal with this issue and the present
legislation is very confusing. In some cases shipowners can
limit their own liability by a simple statement of exemption, and
this would eliminate that.
Another aspect is that the bill excludes the contracting out of
liability by shipowners and operators, especially in marine
passenger contracts. Recently I followed up on a ticket I bought
which had an exemption on it. It turned out that the shipowner
had contracted out the tour I was on. They tried to confuse the
situation by stating that if there were in effect an accident
they would be hidden and protected from liability. In any case,
this prevents shipowners from escaping that liability by any
exclusionary clause they want to dream up.
Bill S-17 incorporates liability aspects of the 1974 Athens
convention and the protocol, as I said earlier. We do have
questions about liability still remaining, especially with
respect to the environment and some aspects of those issues.
We expect it to come to the transport committee and be
thoroughly examined. We expect to have representation from
Department of Transport officials and representatives from the
industry to help us understand the pros and cons of the bill. At
that time we will make our final decision, but at the moment we
support the bill in principle. We think it is long past due. We
hope that the government will make sure the bill is not dropped
from the order paper again this time as it was in 1997 and that
the bill goes through.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to make two points if I may
about the legislation. First, this is legislation that is
introduced from the Senate. I think Canadians who are watching
the debate here need an explanation of why a bill should be
appearing before the House at second reading that has emanated
from the Senate rather than following the normal procedure of
first reading in the Commons and second reading as we are now.
There is reason for concern because the Senate, the other place,
comprises an unelected chamber. The senators are not answerable
to the people.
We must pause as parliamentarians and as all Canadians when we
see a bill coming from the Senate. If legislation is coming from
people who are not elected then we need to be very concerned that
this is the proper procedure. I am absolutely opposed to bills
coming from the Senate that are private members' bills.
1335
However, in this instance this is not a private member's bill
coming from the Senate. This is a government bill that has been
introduced in the Senate. As the member for
Cumberland—Colchester just remarked, the bill is essentially a
piece of legislation that was before the last parliament and died
on the order paper with the calling of the general election in
1997.
We have here an instance where the Senate can fulfil an
important role. That role is to expedite non-controversial
legislation that is very much in the public interest which might
otherwise experience considerable delay as it falls behind, shall
we say, more politically pressing government legislation if it
were to be introduced at first reading and follow the normal
procedure in the House of Commons.
When I say politically pressing, I am not in any way suggesting
that this is not very important legislation. Bill S-17, or Bill
C-53 as it was known before, actually addresses an area of
concern that is really crucial to Canadians. Indeed, as I was
looking through the actual text of the legislation I was amazed
to think the type of protection we are talking about here does
not exist in law already.
What we are dealing with is the idea that when people buy
tickets and board ships in this country with Canadian ownership
they basically have no protection if disaster overtakes the ship
and they lose their lives or are otherwise injured. The regime
that exists now is that people who find themselves in this
situation are forced to go to the courts and use common law
procedures in order to recover damages.
This legislation sets up a regime where the shipowners are
required to have insurance and where there is a personal
liability regime put in place for people who wish to travel by
sea or, I should say, by our freshwater lakes.
Coming back to my point about the Senate, this is important
legislation. One of the difficulties is that the government and
politicians in general do tend to be responsive to the political
pressures of the day that might be forthcoming. I will give a
classic example.
We are expecting legislation in the House very soon pertaining
to the implementation of the national health accord that was just
struck between the Prime Minister and the premiers of the various
provinces. This has to do with our national health and the
ability of our hospitals to provide decent services. This has to
do with the amount of money that comes from the federal
government and is transferred to the provinces. This is a
politically urgent bill.
The sad thing about the way this parliament operates, and this
is not a criticism of the way this parliament operates but is a
reality, is that politically urgent bills sometimes take priority
over bills that are less politically urgent but are nevertheless
just as important. This is the case with the marine liability
bill.
Because the legislation has gone before the Senate I think the
Senate has had an opportunity to examine it in detail. I do not
expect, certainly not in the debate we have before us now, that
any members are going to be raising really controversial issues
with respect to this legislation. Not in this debate. This is
one of the advantages of having it begin in the Senate.
As the member for Cumberland—Colchester said, it will go to the
transportation committee where it will get a thorough examination
as would any other bill coming through the normal process in the
House of Commons.
Having said that and having lauded the procedure that I am told
goes back to Confederation, this is not unusual for the government
to introduce legislation in the Senate in this way. It gives me
an opportunity to stress how much I am absolutely opposed to
bills coming from the Senate that are introduced by senators
themselves.
1340
I have a specific bill in mind, and that is the current bill
coming from the Senate called Bill S-20, that reflects a
senator's initiative with respect to trying to impose an extra
tax on cigarettes in order to raise money to finance advertising
campaigns to lower the incidence of youth smoking. I am sure
that is laudable but it is very wrong for senators to introduce
controversial bills when they do not have to answer to an
electorate as any one of the members of this place have to do.
I want to make sure that the Canadian public out there realizes
that what is happening here with Bill S-17 is something that is
fully in conformity with the rights and privileges of elected
representatives in this place. It does not reflect what may be
happening with respect to this bill coming from the Senate.
Coming back to the marine liability legislation very briefly, as
the member for Cumberland—Colchester spoke very well on the
issue, many Canadians have taken car ferries within Canadian
waters. Many Canadians have taken ships to England or even
cruises on the western shores of this wonderful land of ours.
Many of them would be appalled to realize that they have not been
covered properly, as they would see it, by insurance. This is
legislation that is not only timely but overdue.
I will make one other very important point that was alluded to
by the member for Cumberland—Colchester. That is the business
of shipowners providing an exemption of liability on the ticket.
Basically they purport to contract out their liability if an
accident overtakes the passenger who bought the ticket.
The problem with that is that it lets the shipowner off the
hook. For all the person buying the ticket knows, the insurance
company that has taken the liability contract may be a
fly-by-nighter and disappear overnight. It is really no kind of
protection at all. This legislation, in addressing that and in
requiring shipowners to have liability insurance in the first
place, is very progressive legislation.
I second the sentiments of the member for
Cumberland—Colchester. We should expedite this legislation as
quickly as possible, certainly at this stage of debate, get it
into committee and get it passed. I can assure him the he has
nothing to worry about. I am fully confident this bill will pass
this time well in advance of the next general election call.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I applaud the hon. member for suggesting that the other
place should not be the originator of government bills. That is
a commendable point. I also recognize that member is more
amenable than most to the idea that the other place should have
serious measures of accountability.
Would the hon. member expound more on his idea that the other
place, namely the Senate, should not be the originator of
government bills, and maybe how he feels about the whole idea of
Senate elections and accountability in that place?
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
the question but he misunderstood me just slightly. I find no
fault with the fact that the government has introduced this bill
in the Senate first where it has been examined and has come back
because the Senate has had a chance to examine the bill in
detail. It is still a government bill. The government is
elected by the people and the government is initiating the bill.
Whether it is initiated in this place or that place does not
matter; it is still accountable to the people because it is the
government.
What I am very strongly opposed to is senators introducing their
own private members' bills in the Senate and those bills coming
to this place as private members' legislation. Senators are not
answerable to the public. The difficulty is that they can
introduce controversial bills.
I remember one senator once proposing something about making it
against the law to spank a child. All kinds of controversy was
endured by Liberal members of parliament because it was a Liberal
senator that introduced this idea. This is not a proper
reflection of either the Senate's role or the way this place
should be working in my view.
1345
With Bill S-17, I think probably the best way to have expedited
this very important legislation was to have done exactly what the
government did and that was to introduce it in the Senate first.
We have a full chance to examine it here.
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his clarification on his position with regard to the
introduction of private members' bills in the Senate. He
mentioned that there is some measure of accountability lacking in
the Senate, I agree with him on that. I wonder if he might be
able to offer suggestions from his side of the benches with
regard to ways to improve the accountability in the Senate
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I take this question very
seriously because I know the member is very interested in the
future of the Senate. The Senate has an enormously important
role in parliament but it has to be a role that does not collide
with the role being fulfilled by the elected portion of
Parliament.
Where the Senate is very valuable is it has more time,
particularly on private members' legislation, to examine indepth
the implications of legislation. The particular legislation that
we have before us, Bill S-17, previously Bill C-53, is very
complicated. The average member in this House does not have the
time to give it the examination it deserves.
Even the transportation committee is going to have difficulty
giving it the full examination it deserves. That is what we can
use the Senate for and that is the role the Senate should have.
However, the Senate must not, this government must not and this
House of Commons must not allow the Senate to intrude into those
areas of responsibility that should be exclusively the role of
the elected representatives. We are accountable to the people.
I introduced just recently a very controversial private members'
bill that would make Christmas into a national holiday. I got
400 hostile e-mails. Well, that is correct because I take the
brunt of the fact that I introduced legislation that certainly
some members of the public oppose and they can get at me.
However, they cannot get at a senator.
If the government wishes to introduce a bill through the Senate,
it does not matter to the Senate but the government is still
accountable. If a senator introduces his own legislation and
does not have to answer for it but we do, I think that is wrong.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred
to a committee)
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Madam Speaker, I seek your advice.
Is it appropriate at this time, if there were agreement, to see
the clock as being 2.30 p.m.?
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport is suggesting that we see
the clock as being 2.30 p.m. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Therefore, the House stands
adjourned until Monday, October 16, 2000, at 11 a.m., pursuant
to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.49 p.m.)